Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > > 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. But that's exactly why I think CR_COPY() helps - the sanitation is explicit next to some boring CR_COPY()s. It becomes clearer that it is being done. Anyway we've got plenty of other, bigger hurdles to clear, so while I do have a strong opinion, I'm not planning on pushing hard either way. thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers