linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] Make checkpoint/restart functionality modular

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1224521519.1848.105.camel@nimitz>
Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:51:59 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrey Mirkin <major@...nvz.org>
Cc:	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] Make checkpoint/restart functionality modular

On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 03:11 +0400, Andrey Mirkin wrote:
> +struct cpt_operations
> +{
> +       struct module * owner;
> +       int (*checkpoint)(pid_t pid, int fd, unsigned long flags);
> +       int (*restart)(int ctid, int fd, unsigned long flags);
> +};

I think this is pretty useless obfuscation.  We're not going to have
pluggable checkpoint/restart implementations, are we?  So, why bother
putting it in a module?

I can understand that it's easier to develop your code when it's in a
module and you don't have to reboot the machine to load a new kernel
each time.  But, that's an individual developer thing, and doesn't
belong in an upstream submission.

I know people have given you a hard time for this in the past.  Why is
it still here?

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/