From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9KHHGmD030957 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:17:16 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m9KHHGXV072604 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:17:16 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9KHHF5v024983 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:17:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC v6][PATCH 0/9] Kernel based checkpoint/restart From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <48F83121.7070705@davidnewall.com> References: <1223461197-11513-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081009124658.GE2952@elte.hu> <1223557122.11830.14.camel@nimitz> <20081009131701.GA21112@elte.hu> <1223559246.11830.23.camel@nimitz> <20081009134415.GA12135@elte.hu> <1223571036.11830.32.camel@nimitz> <20081010153951.GD28977@elte.hu> <48F30315.1070909@fr.ibm.com> <1223916223.29877.14.camel@nimitz> <48F6092D.6050400@fr.ibm.com> <48F685A3.1060804@cs.columbia.edu> <48F7352F.3020700@fr.ibm.com> <48F74674.20202@cs.columbia.edu> <87r66g8875.wl%peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> <48F83121.7070705@davidnewall.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:17:12 -0700 Message-Id: <1224523032.1848.119.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Newall Cc: Peter Chubb , Oren Laadan , Daniel Lezcano , Cedric Le Goater , jeremy@goop.org, arnd@arndb.de, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrey Mirkin List-ID: On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 17:00 +1030, David Newall wrote: > > The strace/gdb example is *really* hard; but for vfork, you just wait > > until it's over. The interval between vfork and exec/exit should be > > short enough not to affect the overall time for a checkpoint > > A malicious user could trivially exploit that. You mean a malicious user could prevent a checkpoint from occurring by doing this? There are going to be a lot of those for a long while. :) -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org