linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart

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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:42:32 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc:	Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hpa@...or.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint
	restart

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 07:03 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > In our implementation, we simply refused to checkpoint setid
> programs.
> 
> True. And this works very well for HPC applications.
> 
> However, it doesn't work so well for server applications, for
> instance.
> 
> Also, you could use file system snapshotting to ensure that the file
> system view does not change, and still face the same issue.
> 
> So I'm perfectly ok with deferring this discussion to a later time :)

Oren, is this a good place to stick a process_deny_checkpoint()?  Both
so we refuse to checkpoint, and document this as something that has to
be addressed later?

-- 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/