linux-kernel - Re: How much of a mess does OpenVZ make? ;) Was: 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]

Date:	Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:12:07 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mpm@...enic.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: How much of a mess does OpenVZ make? ;) Was: What can OpenVZ
	do?


* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:

> >> In the OpenVZ case, they've at least demonstrated that the 
> >> filesystem can be moved largely with rsync.  Unlinked files 
> >> need some in-kernel TLC (or /proc mangling) but it isn't 
> >> *that* bad.
> >
> > And in the Zap we have successfully used a log-based 
> > filesystem (specifically NILFS) to continuously snapshot the 
> > file-system atomically with taking a checkpoint, so it can 
> > easily branch off past checkpoints, including the file 
> > system.
> >
> > And unlinked files can be (inefficiently) handled by saving 
> > their full contents with the checkpoint image - it's not a 
> > big toll on many apps (if you exclude Wine and UML...). At 
> > least that's a start.
> 
> Oren we might want to do a proof of concept implementation 
> like I did with network namespaces.  That is done in the 
> community and goes far enough to show we don't have horribly 
> nasty code.  The patches and individual changes don't need to 
> be quite perfect but close enough that they can be considered 
> for merging.
> 
> For the network namespace that seems to have made a big 
> difference.
> 
> I'm afraid in our clean start we may have focused a little too 
> much on merging something simple and not gone far enough on 
> showing that things will work.
> 
> After I had that in the network namespace and we had a clear 
> vision of the direction.  We started merging the individual 
> patches and things went well.

I'm curious: what is the actual end result other than good 
looking code? In terms of tangible benefits to the everyday 
Linux distro user. [This is not meant to be sarcastic, i'm
truly curious.]

	Ingo
--
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/