BH> But devices that are not IFF_UP can still have addresses BH> associated with them, wouldn't this cause those addresses to not BH> be checkpointed? Yes. This was discussed on IRC a bit as being a reasonable compromise. Right now, there are several pernet devices that could show up in a new network namespace that will prevent a checkpoint from completing. Since you can't easily, and at runtime, get rid of these devices without recompiling the kernel, you're kinda stuck. So, we discussed this as something that will let you out of that situation for interfaces that are down. We could, I suppose, inspect the interfaces a bit to see if they have any addresses configured before we agree to skip them. However, that could falsely trigger a failure because of autoconf addresses, I would think. The plan is to have a "strict mode" flag that will attempt to checkpoint and fail on down but unsupported interfaces to make sure we don't save an inaccurate representation of the netns that the application is in. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
