On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If two tasks share an mm_struct then the mm_struct pointer (task->mm) will
>> point to the same address. Objects are already uniquely identified by
>> their address.
>
> Yes of course, but ...
>
>> If you store the physical address with the object content
>> when transferring then you can verify that they share the mm_struct.
>
> ... are we all OK with showing kernel addresses to the userspace? I thought the %pK
> format was invented specially to handle such leaks.
I don't think it's worth it to try to hide kernel addresses for
checkpoint/restart.
> If we are, then (as I said in the first letter) we should just show them and forget
> this set. If we're not - we should invent smth more straightforward and this set is
> an attempt for doing this.
Does this ID thing need to happen in the slab layer?
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>