[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A1F135A.6030604@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:42:34 -0400
From: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xemul@...allels.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/38] C/R: core stuff
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 06:44:36PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@...il.com):
>>> And since you guys showed that just idea of in-kernel checkpointing is not
>>> rejected outright, it doesn't mean that you can drag every single idea too.
>> Can you rephrase here? I have no idea what you mean by 'drag every single
>> idea'
>
> complexity
> +-|------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-->
> hypervisor C/R in-kernel C/R C/R for unpriviledged
> C/R with "leaks"
>
c/r for unprivileged users is indeed more complex - requires more care.
Keep in mind, however, that most of that are sanity checks that we would
like to have in the code anyway.
c/r with "leaks" is actually a subset of the code that prevents leaks:
simply comment out the leak detection :)
Oren.
> I personally thought in-kernel C/R will be rejected outright, but it wasn't.
> This in theory doesn't mean other two issues should be accepted.
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
>
--
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