linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/4] Resending, c/r series v2

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: <20120215074224.GB4533@moon>
Date:	Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:42:24 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
	James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] Resending, c/r series v2

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 08:52:36AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 02:51 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:48:22 +0400
> > Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi, this series hopefully in a good shape
> >>
> >>  - sys_kcmp now depends on CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
> >>
> >>  - the extension of /proc/pid/stat now done against
> >>    linux-next/master
> >>
> >> Please letme know if I've missed something.
> > 
> > Thus far our (my) approach has been to trickle the c/r support code
> > into mainline as it is developed.  Under the assumption that the end
> > result will be acceptable and useful kernel code.
> > 
> > I'm afraid that I'm losing confidence in that approach.  We have this
> > patchset, we have Stanislav's "IPC: checkpoint/restore in userspace
> > enhancements" (which apparently needs to get more complex to support
> > LSM context c/r).  I simply *don't know* what additional patchsets are
> > expected.  And from what you told me it sounds like networking support
> > is at a very early stage and I fear for what the end result of that
> > will look like.
> 
> I understand. But there was a confidence that nobody wanted the c/r stuff to 
> be the "one big kernel subsystem", but it should rather be "a bunch of small 
> API-s for what is required". The amount of code for the initial C/R attempt was
> ~100 patches. The amount of code to support our user-space C/R implementation
> *only* is ~10 and the feature-set of both is already comparable.
> 

Andrew, I hope Pavel has addressed all your concerns? What I personally
trying to achieve mostly -- the patches should be as minimum as possible,
still usable. I believe the patches which are already in tree are useful for
other projects as well (for example -- /proc/pid/task/tid/"children" to find
all children and build process topology fast). prctl extension look a bit
redundant for kernel in general, but they are easily turnable off via Kconfig
option. /proc/pid/map_files/ might be redundant too but it could be eliminated
via Kconfig as well. So I think the both series actually do not bring much noise
into kernel itself.

	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/