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@xxxxxxxxxx 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. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
