I won't really argue, but... On 01/24, Gregory Price wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:52:29PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 01/23, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > > > So i think dropping 2/3 in the list is good. If you concur i'll do > > > that. > > > > Well I obviously think that 2/3 should be dropped ;) > > > > As for 1/3 and 3/3, feel free to add my reviewed-by. > > > > Oleg. > > > > I'm actually going to walk my agreement back. > > After one more review, the need for the proc/status entry is not to > decide whether to dump SUD settings, but for use in deciding whether to > set the SUSPEND_SYSCALL_DISPATCH option from patch 1/3. Rather than read /proc/pid/status, CRIU can just do PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG unconditionally and check syscall_user_dispatch_config.mode ? Why do want to expose SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH in /proc/status? If this task is not stopped you can't trust this value anyway. If it is stopped, I don't think ptrace(PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG) is slower than reading /proc. but perhaps I missed something? Oleg.
