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  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:	Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:19:28 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>
To:	Dave Hansen <>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	containers <>,
	"" <>,
	Oren Laadan <>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] add f_op for checkpointability

Quoting Dave Hansen (
> > Also the double-use of the op seem not very nice to me.  Is there any
> > real life use case were you would have the operation on a file but
> > sometimes not allow checkpoiting?
> No, I don't have any good concrete ones.  The first thing that comes to
> mind is something like a pipe.  We can checkpoint when there's no data,
> but must refuse when there's data in the pipe.  In practice, pipes are
> fixable, but it is the kind of situation where I expected it to get
> used.

Hmm, but that's the kind of thing Ingo is resolutely against,
right?  If you've opened some resource that may in certain
cases not be checkpointable, then checkpointing it in certain
states is just wrong, as the app can never know for sure (without
knowing the fragile and temporary implementation details)
whether it is checkpointable.

So we either support pipes or we don't.

(Now maybe you have another use in mind for it...)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists