From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [RFC v16][PATCH 23/43] c/r: restart multiple processes Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 23:37:58 +0400 Message-ID: <20090527193758.GC31930@x200.localdomain> References: <1243445589-32388-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1243445589-32388-24-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1243445589-32388-24-git-send-email-orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Oren Laadan Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Serge Hallyn , Dave Hansen , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Alexander Viro , Pavel Emelyanov List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > Restarting of multiple processes expects all restarting tasks to call > sys_restart(). Once inside the system call, each task will restart > itself at the same order that they were saved. The internals of the > syscall will take care of in-kernel synchronization bewteen tasks. > > This patch does _not_ create the task tree in the kernel. Instead it > assumes that all tasks are created in some way and then invoke the > restart syscall. You can use the userspace mktree.c program to do > that. > > The init task (*) has a special role: it allocates the restart context > (ctx), and coordinates the operation. In particular, it first waits > until all participating tasks enter the kernel, and provides them the > common restart context. Once everyone in ready, it begins to restart > itself. > > In contrast, the other tasks enter the kernel, locate the init task (*) > and grab its restart context, and then wait for their turn to restore. > > When a task (init or not) completes its restart, it hands the control > over to the next in line, by waking that task. > > An array of pids (the one saved during the checkpoint) is used to > synchronize the operation. The first task in the array is the init > task (*). The restart context (ctx) maintain a "current position" in > the array, which indicates which task is currently active. Once the > currently active task completes its own restart, it increments that > position and wakes up the next task. > > Restart assumes that userspace provides meaningful data, otherwise > it's garbage-in-garbage-out. In this case, the syscall may block > indefinitely, but in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, so the user can ctrl-c or > otherwise kill the stray restarting tasks. > > In terms of security, restart runs as the user the invokes it, so it > will not allow a user to do more than is otherwise permitted by the > usual system semantics and policy. > > Currently we ignore threads and zombies Let's discuss threads and zombies. 1. Will zombie end up in a image? 2. If yes, how it will be restored. Will it be forked, call restart(2) and then somehow zombified inside kernel? 3. How thread group will be restored, will every thread be CLONE_THREAD'ed? What to do with exited thread group leaders, will they be forked, then CLONE_THREAD thread group? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html