linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] fs, proc: Introduce /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children entry v8

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]

Message-ID: <20120125065217.GB2005@moon>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:52:17 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] fs, proc: Introduce /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children
 entry v8

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:53:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:20:37 +0400
> Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> 
> > When we do checkpoint of a task we need to know the list of children
> > the task, has but there is no easy and fast way to generate reverse
> > parent->children chain from arbitrary <pid> (while a parent pid is
> > provided in "PPid" field of /proc/<pid>/status).
> > 
> > So instead of walking over all pids in the system (creating one big process
> > tree in memory, just to figure out which children a task has) -- we add
> > explicit /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children entry, because the kernel already has
> > this kind of information but it is not yet exported.
> > 
> > This is a first level children, not the whole process tree.
> 
> Is there a reason for not putting this new code inside
> CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART?  If so, please changelog that.
> 

I don't know if someone might need it as well, so I've asked in one of
previous iterations if this file is to be under CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART.
So, sure, I'll wrap it this way.

> We could add
> 
> /* #ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART (reasoning goes here) */
> 
> so that if we should decide to pull all this code out again, a grep
> will flag this code for consideration.
> 

	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/