linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] track files for checkpointability

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]

Date:	Fri, 6 Mar 2009 01:00:44 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] track files for checkpointability

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:27:07PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Imagine, unsupported file is opened between userspace checks
> > for /proc/*/checkpointable and /proc/*/fdinfo/*/checkpointable
> > and whatever, you stil have to do all the checks inside checkpoint(2).
> 
> Alexey, we have two problems here.  I completely agree that we have to
> do complete and thorough checks of each file descriptor at
> sys_checkpoint().  Any checks made at other times should not be trusted.
> 
> The other side is what Ingo has been asking for.  How do we *know* when
> we are checkpointable *before* we call (and without calling)

This "without calling checkpoint(2)" results in much complications
as demonstrated.

task_struct and file are not like other structures because they are exposed
in /proc. For PROC_FS=n kernels, one can't even check.

You can do checkpoint(2) without actual dump. You pass, you're most
certainly checkpointable (with inevitable race condition in mind).

With time the amount of stuff C/R won't support will approach zero,
but the infrastructure for "checkpointable" will stay constant.
If it's too much right now, it will be way too much in future.

> sys_checkpoint()?  You are yet to acknowledge that this is a valid use
> case, but it is exactly what Ingo is asking for, I believe.

It's a valid requirement.

> If nice printk()s are sufficient to cover what Ingo wants, I'm quite
> happy to remove the /proc files.  
--
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/