Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:57 -0800, Dan Smith wrote: >>> DH> Did you convince Nathan that this ends up being a good idea? >>> >>> Technically he hasn't seen this version, but my hopes are not high >>> that he will change his mind. If the feedback is that they're not >>> liked, I'll happily remove them. >> I just figure if Nathan feels that strongly that we'll encounter more >> people who feel even more so. So, I was curious if he changed his mind >> somehow. > > I maintain however that two strong advantages of moving the checkpoint > and restart of simple registers etc into a single function are: > > 1. we won't forget to add (or accidentally lose) one or the > other > 2. any actual special handling at checkpoint or restart, like > the loading of access registers at restart on s390x, > stand out > I, too, think that this scheme is elegant, and at the same time I, too, think that it obfuscates the code. Since I only touch arch-dependent code only if I really really must, I don't have strong opinion about it ;) However, a problem with this scheme is that checkpoint and restart are not fully symmetric -- on restart we must sanitize the input data before restoring the registers to that data. I'm not familiar with s390, but it is likely that by not doing so we create a security issue. Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
