[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EA155A8.8010802@parallels.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:21:12 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.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 10/21/2011 03:20 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> 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?
not fork(), clone().
--
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