[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111021112031.GO14464@moon>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:20:31 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...allels.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] elf: Add support for loading ET_CKPT files
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 03:06:12PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
...
> exec() is a fundamental interface to the kernel, and the change
> proposed here is too disruptive. Not only that, it is rather
> unannounced: since not always one knows kind of fmt file is being
> exec'd, it gets hard to infer which behavior to expect.
>
This missed snipped in changelog indeed my very fault, sorry for that.
> I am wondering, though: if exec is a problem, but the binary handler
> is not, maybe we can exec a process using this handler, and then
> have the handler itself to create the thread hierarchy. This way we
> avoid changing exec() behavior at all, yet achieving the same
> results.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
Glauber, could you please elaborate, you mean to call for forks inside
elf-chkpt handler, right? Or you mean something else?
Cyrill
--
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