linux-kernel - Re: What can OpenVZ do?

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: <20090218051123.GA9367@x200.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:11:23 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mpm@...enic.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, xemul@...nvz.org,
	Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: What can OpenVZ do?

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:40:39PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 01:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Uncheckpointable should be a one-way flag anyway. We want this 
> > > > to become usable, so uncheckpointable functionality should be as 
> > > > painful as possible, to make sure it's getting fixed ...
> > > 
> > > Again, as these patches stand, we don't support checkpointing 
> > > when non-simple files are opened.  Basically, if a 
> > > open()/lseek() pair won't get you back where you were, we 
> > > don't deal with them.
> > > 
> > > init does non-checkpointable things.  If the flag is a one-way 
> > > trip, we'll never be able to checkpoint because we'll always 
> > > inherit init's ! checkpointable flag.
> > > 
> > > To fix this, we could start working on making sure we can 
> > > checkpoint init, but that's practically worthless.
> > 
> > i mean, it should be per process (per app) one-way flag of 
> > course. If the app does something unsupported, it gets 
> > non-checkpointable and that's it.
> 
> OK, we can definitely do that.  Do you think it is OK to run through a
> set of checks at exec() time to check if the app currently has any
> unsupported things going on?  If we don't directly inherit the parent's
> status, then we need to have *some* time when we check it.

Uncheckpointable is not one-way.

Imagine remap_file_pages(2) is unsupported. Now app uses
remap_file_pages(2), then unmaps interesting VMA. Now app is
checkpointable again.

As for overloading LSM, I think, it would be horrible.
Most hooks are useless, there are config options expanding LSM hooks,
and CPT and LSM are just totally orthogonal.

Instead, just (no offence) get big enough coverage -- run modern and
past distros, run servers packaged with them, and if you can checkpoint
all of this, you're mostly fine.
--
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/