[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5509EF82.60900@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:34:58 +0300
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Andrey Wagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86_64,signal: Fix SS handling for signals delivered
to 64-bit programs
On 03/19/2015 12:26 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/18, Andrey Wagin wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the problem. Oleg, could you send this path in the
>>> criu maillist?
>>
>> Sure, will do.
>
> We still haven't answered one question: what's the kernel's position
> on ABI stability wrt CRIU? We clearly shouldn't make changes that
> break the principle of CRIU, but CRIU encodes so many tricky
> assumptions about the inner workings of the kernel that it's really
> tough to avoid breaking old CRIU versions.
Well, we try hard to use only documented kernel API-s. Isn't the sigframe
considered to be some sort of "stable API"? I mean -- it's visible by the
userspace, nobody prevents glibc or gdb from messing with this stuff just
by reading it from memory.
If it's "parse-able" e.g. like VDSO is, but we don't do it in CRIU -- then
it's definitely a CRIU BUG to be fixed.
> So... do we introduce somewhat nasty code into the kernel to keep old
> CRIU versions working, or do we require that users who want to restore
> onto new kernels use new CRIU?
It's OK (I think) to require newer versions of CRIU, it's easy to update
one unlike the kernel ;)
But if "old" version of CRIU just crash the restored processes on "new"
kernels and there's no way to detect this properly -- that's the problem.
> (It seems clear to me that CRIU should apply the patch regardless of
> what the kernel does. It will enable CRIU to work on the same class
> of programs that are fixed by the kernel change that started this
> thread.)
>
> --Andy
> .
>
Thanks,
Pavel
--
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