[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50646B3C.8000509@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:05:32 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tty: Add get- ioctls to fetch tty status
On 09/27/2012 07:48 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:43:44AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>> If you can't guarantee that ALL those processes are stopped and
>>>> checkpointed/restarted, you have a huge problem.
>>>
>>> Well, sure inside our tool before doing checkpoint we stop all
>>> tasks which are part of dumpee process tree. This unfortunatly
>>> doesn't apply to these ioctl calls. Peter, any idea how to deal
>>> with that?
>>
>> Sorry, no. I suspect you might be trying to do something that is
>> impossible to do in a general fashion without application changes.
>
> I see. What if I wrap all this entries with CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
> and say add some sysctl which would enable/disbale this ioctls. Then
> it'll be up to user-space callers to make sure that data received is
> valid and can be used? The problem is that I need to fetch this bits
> somehow with minimal changes in kernel.
>
I don't see how that solves anything.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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