On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 05:43:47PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
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.
*facepalm* good point, i'm wondering if there's a reason CRIU doesn't do the same for SECCOMP.
either way, going to drop it