lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] c/r: Add CR_COPY() macro (v3)


    Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
    > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
    >> 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.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-18 08:55    [W:2.476 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site