Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754852Ab1DDPKZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:10:25 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:37830 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754269Ab1DDPKY (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:10:24 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=aqMe+0lCtaYvy4h0jyaoPGyq+DPF+P6rPG2xbekoY9Q= c=1 sm=0 a=wom5GMh1gUkA:10 a=qfFVHXmYx5UA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=eAWTIsOZi86Vnn5xZOjC/w==:17 a=ybZZDoGAAAAA:8 a=aHJDgEFMiPrFbtCkcGQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=qIVjreYYsbEA:10 a=eAWTIsOZi86Vnn5xZOjC/w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 70.123.154.172 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:10:18 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Nathan Lynch Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Oren Laadan , Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code Message-ID: <20110404151017.GA4857@hallyn.com> References: <1298936432-29607-1-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com> <1298936432-29607-6-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com> <20110403190324.GD15044@hallyn.com> <1301929228.31531.39.camel@tp-t61> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1301929228.31531.39.camel@tp-t61> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1339 Lines: 32 Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@pobox.com): > On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 14:03 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting ntl@pobox.com (ntl@pobox.com): > > > Only a pid namespace init task - the child process produced by a call > > > to clone(2) with CLONE_NEWPID - is allowed to call these. The state > > > > So you make this useful for your cases by only using this with > > application containers - created using lxc-execute, or, more precisely, > > using lxc-init as the container's init. So a container running a stock > > distro can't be checkpointed. > > Correct, a conventional distro init won't work, and application > containers are my focus for now, at least. > > > > Is this just to keep the patch simple for now, or is there some reason > > to keep this limitation in place? > > I guess you're asking whether non-pid-init processes could be allowed to > use the syscalls? No. I'm asking whether you are intending to later on change the checkpoint API to allow an external task to checkpoint a pid-init process, rather than the pid-init process having to initiate it itself. -serge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/