From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759180AbZE1SMA (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 14:12:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754648AbZE1SLy (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 14:11:54 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:53216 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753195AbZE1SLx (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 14:11:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:17:15 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, xemul@parallels.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/38] C/R: core stuff Message-ID: <20090528181715.GA2384@hallyn.com> References: <1242968132-1044-1-git-send-email-adobriyan@gmail.com> <1242968132-1044-18-git-send-email-adobriyan@gmail.com> <20090526131644.GA20920@hallyn.com> <20090526193503.GB11909@x200.localdomain> <20090526234436.GB23806@hallyn.com> <20090528153852.GC18256@x200.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090528153852.GC18256@x200.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@gmail.com): > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 06:44:36PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@gmail.com): > > > And since you guys showed that just idea of in-kernel checkpointing is not > > > rejected outright, it doesn't mean that you can drag every single idea too. > > > > Can you rephrase here? I have no idea what you mean by 'drag every single > > idea' > > complexity > +-|------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--> > hypervisor C/R in-kernel C/R C/R for unpriviledged > C/R with "leaks" > > I personally thought in-kernel C/R will be rejected outright, but it wasn't. > This in theory doesn't mean other two issues should be accepted. Note again that leaving c/R unprivileged was suggested (By Arnd) as a way to keep us on our toes. When it actually goes upstream I would prefer it be under a new CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTART capability, not CAP_SYS_ADMIN. -serge