From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: cryo and mm->arg_start Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:38:30 -0700 Message-ID: <1215794310.9139.6.camel@nimitz> References: <20080711131345.GA18870@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080711131345.GA18870-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 List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 08:13 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > One thing we could do here is to start extending the cryo approach > with Eric's checkpoint-as-a-coredump (caac?). We generate the > tiniest of coredumps which, at first, contains nothing but > mm->arg_start and maybe a process id. It would be simplest if > it also contained a filename for the real executable, The exec model sounds reasonable to me. But, I think the filename of the exe is going to have to be in the checkpoint *already*. It is mapped by at least one of the VMAs, and will probably be dumped as a normal file-backed area. Now, since arg_start is already set up at exec time, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have the theoretical fs/binfmt_cr.c set it as well. -- Dave