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:	Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:24:25 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.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 Fri, 2009-03-06 at 01:00 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> 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.

I'll let you take that up with Ingo. :)

> task_struct and file are not like other structures because they are exposed
> in /proc.

Very true.  But, we can always use the task as a proxy to say whether
any of this tasks's *resources* are uncheckpointable.  Is this task's
ipc_namespace checkpointable, etc...

> For PROC_FS=n kernels, one can't even check.

Definitely.  I'd be happy to make this check require PROC=y or even
DEBUGFS=y.  I just want to make the mechanism usable for developers so
they're more motivated to find and fix checkpoint issues.

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

OK, so you envision this as maybe calling sys_checkpoint() with a -1 fd
or something?  I'm generally OK with that.  If the /proc stuff is really
the sticking point here, I'd be happy to stick it at the end of the
series so we can throw it away more easily.

> 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.

What have you seen in OpenVZ?  Do new things that are not checkpointable
pop up very often?

-- Dave

--
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/