[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110404151017.GA4857@hallyn.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:10:18 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code
Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@...ox.com):
> On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 14:03 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting ntl@...ox.com (ntl@...ox.com):
> > > Only a pid namespace init task - the child process produced by a call
> > > to clone(2) with CLONE_NEWPID - is allowed to call these. The state
> >
> > So you make this useful for your cases by only using this with
> > application containers - created using lxc-execute, or, more precisely,
> > using lxc-init as the container's init. So a container running a stock
> > distro can't be checkpointed.
>
> Correct, a conventional distro init won't work, and application
> containers are my focus for now, at least.
>
>
> > Is this just to keep the patch simple for now, or is there some reason
> > to keep this limitation in place?
>
> I guess you're asking whether non-pid-init processes could be allowed to
> use the syscalls?
No. I'm asking whether you are intending to later on change the checkpoint
API to allow an external task to checkpoint a pid-init process, rather than
the pid-init process having to initiate it itself.
-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