From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oren Laadan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cr: define CHECKPOINT_SUBTREE flag and sysctl Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:12:20 -0400 Message-ID: <49F611A4.9040101@cs.columbia.edu> References: <20090424210608.GA16973@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090424210608.GA16973-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 , Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Hey Alexey and Oren, > > here is my proposal for a patch on top of Oren's tree to do the leak > checking by default (basically the same way it was done in Alexey's > patchset). It also by default explicitly requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN for > both checkpoint and restart. > > I think the mm->exe_file save/restore is a separate feature addition, > but it was required to cleanly pass the file use count checks... > > Any chance this is acceptable to both of you? > Sounds like a good idea to me. Oren.