linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20090211141434.dfa1d079.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:14:34 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	orenl@...columbia.edu, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/restart

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:05:47 -0800
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:07 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > Checkpoint-restart (c/r): a couple of fixes in preparation for 64bit
> > architectures, and a couple of fixes for bugss (comments from Serge
> > Hallyn, Sudakvev Bhattiprolu and Nathan Lynch). Updated and tested
> > against v2.6.28.
> > 
> > Aiming for -mm.
> 
> Is there anything that we're waiting on before these can go into -mm?  I
> think the discussion on the first few patches has died down to almost
> nothing.  They're pretty reviewed-out.  Do they need a run in -mm?  I
> don't think linux-next is quite appropriate since they're not _quite_
> aimed at mainline yet.
> 

I raised an issue a few months ago and got inconclusively waffled at. 
Let us revisit.

I am concerned that this implementation is a bit of a toy, and that we
don't know what a sufficiently complete implementation will look like. 
There is a risk that if we merge the toy we either:

a) end up having to merge unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code to
   make it a non-toy or

b) decide not to merge the unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code,
   leaving us with a toy or

c) simply cannot work out how to implement the missing functionality.


So perhaps we can proceed by getting you guys to fill out the following
paperwork:

- In bullet-point form, what features are present?

- In bullet-point form, what features are missing, and should be added?

- Is it possible to briefly sketch out the design of the to-be-added
  features?

For extra marks:

- Will any of this involve non-trivial serialisation of kernel
  objects?  If so, that's getting into the
  unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain space, I suspect.

- Does (or will) this feature also support process migration?  If
  not, I'd have thought this to be a showstopper.

--
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/