[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4905F648.4030402@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:11:36 -0400
From: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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
Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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?
why refuse to checkpoint ?
if I'm root, and I want to checkpoint, and later restart, my sshd server
(assuming we support listening sockets) - then why not ?
we can just let it be, and have the restart fail (if it isn't root that
does the restart); perhaps add something like warn_checkpoint() (similar
to deny, but only warns) ?
Oren.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists