From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: restarting tests/sleep Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:32:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1213029148.3508.25.camel@nimitz> References: <484D2E7C.4060905@bull.net> <20080609143626.GA23253@us.ibm.com> <484D4364.2080509@bull.net> <20080609162309.GA32120@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080609162309.GA32120-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Linux Containers , Nadia Derbey List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:23 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Yeah that's insurmountable - notice the stack in the process which was > fork()ed to be the restarted process topped at bfcab000, while the > checkpointed stack topped at bfdae000. You're not allowed to write > above the stack. So the only things to do are > > 1. keep trying the restart in the hopes you get a task with > stack topping at or above bfdae000 > 2. if the checkpointed stack is too high to be likely to be > restartable, generate a new checkpoint image and you > should get a lower stack top. > > (Dave, maybe you had other ideas I haven't considered) Have you tried turning of stack randomization? It should make the stack more dependable at exec. We could also provide a hint somewhere on exec() where to place the stack. -- Dave