From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oren Laadan Subject: Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:11:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4905F648.4030402@cs.columbia.edu> References: <1224481237-4892-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1224481237-4892-3-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081021124130.a002e838.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081021202410.GA10423@us.ibm.com> <48FE82DF.6030005@cs.columbia.edu> <20081022152804.GA23821@us.ibm.com> <48FF4EB2.5060206@cs.columbia.edu> <87tzayh27r.wl%peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> <49059FED.4030202@cs.columbia.edu> <1225125752.12673.79.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1225125752.12673.79.camel@nimitz> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: Peter Chubb , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org, hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 07:03 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: >>> In our implementation, we simply refused to checkpoint setid >> programs. >> >> True. And this works very well for HPC applications. >> >> However, it doesn't work so well for server applications, for >> instance. >> >> Also, you could use file system snapshotting to ensure that the file >> system view does not change, and still face the same issue. >> >> So I'm perfectly ok with deferring this discussion to a later time :) > > Oren, is this a good place to stick a process_deny_checkpoint()? Both > so we refuse to checkpoint, and document this as something that has to > be addressed later? why refuse to checkpoint ? if I'm root, and I want to checkpoint, and later restart, my sshd server (assuming we support listening sockets) - then why not ? we can just let it be, and have the restart fail (if it isn't root that does the restart); perhaps add something like warn_checkpoint() (similar to deny, but only warns) ? Oren. -- 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