[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090302183522.GA13447@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:35:22 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
hch@...radead.org, Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability
Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 11:44 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> > > On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 11:22 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > > > No.. I mean what if a process 1234 does
> > > >
> > > > f = fopen("/proc/1234/stat", "r");
> > > >
> > > > and is then checkpointed. Can that path be resolved during restart,
> > > > before pid 1234 is alive?
> > >
> > > Heh, that's a good one.
> > >
> > > It does mean that we can't do restore like this:
> > >
> > > for_each_cr_task()
> > > restore_task_struct()
> > > restore_files()
> > > ...
> > >
> > > We have to do:
> > >
> > > for_each_cr_task()
> > > restore_task_struct()
> > > for_each_cr_task()
> > > restore_files()
> > >
> > Which is what we actually do, right?
>
> OK, I have a really evil one.
>
> What if task 1234 does:
>
> open(O_RDONLY, "/proc/5678/fdinfo/44");
>
> and task 5678 does:
>
> open(O_RDONLY, "/proc/5678/fdinfo/55");
Nice one. Let's make fdinfo files uncheckpointable for now :)
-serge
--
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