Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 11:44 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
>>> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 11:22 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>>>> No.. I mean what if a process 1234 does
>>>>
>>>> f = fopen("/proc/1234/stat", "r");
>>>>
>>>> and is then checkpointed. Can that path be resolved during restart,
>>>> before pid 1234 is alive?
>>> Heh, that's a good one.
>>>
>>> It does mean that we can't do restore like this:
>>>
>>> for_each_cr_task()
>>> restore_task_struct()
>>> restore_files()
>>> ...
>>>
>>> We have to do:
>>>
>>> for_each_cr_task()
>>> restore_task_struct()
>>> for_each_cr_task()
>>> restore_files()
>>>
>> Which is what we actually do, right?
>
> OK, I have a really evil one.
>
> What if task 1234 does:
>
> open(O_RDONLY, "/proc/5678/fdinfo/44");
>
> and task 5678 does:
>
> open(O_RDONLY, "/proc/5678/fdinfo/55");
>
> There is no right order.
>
> The only right way I can think to do it is that we have to loop on the
> restore and defer files that we can't seem to find right now, hoping
> that they'll show up as the restore progresses.
or the restore algorithm should support recursion. for example, epoll,
attached 'struct files' to af_unix socket, pipes (2 ends), fifos (idem),
connected socket (you need the listening end), etc.
C.
> Basically:
>
> for_each_cr_task()
> deferred_files = restore_files()
> retry:
> making_progress = 0
> for_each(deferred_file)
> restore(deferred_file)
> if (making_progress)
> goto retry;
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
