lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Track in-kernel when we expect checkpoint/restart to work
From
Date
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 10:37 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> I think implementing the reverse operation will be a nightmare, IMHO it
> is safe to say we deny checkpointing for the process life-cycle either
> if the created resource was destroyed before we initiate the checkpoint.
>
> For example, you create a socket, the process becomes uncheckpointable,
> you close (via sys_close) the socket, you have to track this close to be
> related to the socket which made the process uncheckpointable in order
> to make the operation reversible.
>
> Let's imagine you implement this reverse operation anyway, you have a
> process which creates a TCP connection, writes data and close the socket
> (so you are again checkpointable), but in the namespace there is the
> orphan socket which is not checkpointable yet and you missed this case.

That's exactly what I wanted to read... Tracking only is inherently
flawed. The valid way IMHO implies checks at checkpoint time.

--
Gregory Kurz gkurz@fr.ibm.com
Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com
Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420

"Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
Alan Moore.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-10 10:51    [W:0.070 / U:22.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site