linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

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:	Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:03:09 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To:	Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
Cc:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@...ox.com):
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:32 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > From the technical point of view it *is* a big problem:  there are
> > very good reasons why we chose a certain design. 
> > 
> > If Natahan is suggesting in-kernel tree creation as a temporary thing
> > to simplify the code for review - then, given that this patch handles
> > a single process, doing so add lots of unnecessary code, all of which
> > in the kernel.
> > 
> > If this is the beginning of a permanent approach, then it is totally
> > incompatible with what we have done so far, and severely restricts 
> > the kind of use--cases of the project, potentially making it too
> > unattractive for many natural adaptors, like HPC users. Sorry, nack.
> 
> It's not a stopgap measure to "ease review" or whatever; recreating the
> task tree in-kernel is a fundamental - and simplifying - part of the

I hadn't gotten to that part yet, so I'm on the fence.

The API for starting a checkpoint, that I'm not on the fence on.

-serge

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)