Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > >>>>An alternative to this solution consists in defining a new field in the >>>>task structure (let's call it next_syscall_data) that, if set, would change >>>>the behavior of next syscall to be called. The sys_fork_with_id() previously >>>>cited can be replaced by >>>>1) set next_syscall_data to a target upid nr >>>>2) call fork(). >>> >>> >>>...bloat task struct and >>> >>> >>> >>>>A new file is created in procfs: /proc/self/task/<my_tid>/next_syscall_data. >>>>This makes it possible to avoid races between several threads belonging to >>>>the same process. >>> >>> >>>...introducing this kind of uglyness. >>> >>>Actually, there were proposals for sys_indirect(), which is slightly >>>less ugly, but IIRC we ended up with adding syscalls, too. > > >>I had a look at the lwn.net article that describes the sys_indirect() >>interface. >>It does exactly what we need here, so I do like it, but it has the same >>drawbacks as the one you're complaining about: >>. a new field is needed in the task structure >>. looks like many people found it ugly... > > >>Now, coming back to what I'm proposing: what we need is actually to change >>the behavior of *existing* syscalls, since we are in a very particular >>context (restarting an application). > > > Changing existing syscalls is _bad_: for backwards compatibility > reasons.
I'm sorry but I don't see a backward compatibility problem: same interface, same functionality provided. The only change is in the way ids are assigned. Actually, one drawback I'm seeing is that we are adding a test to the classical syscall path (the test on the current->next_syscall_data being set or not). > strace will be very confusing to read, etc... We'll have the 3 following lines added to an strace output each time we fill the proc file: open("/proc/15084/task/15084/next_syscall_data", O_RDWR) = 4 write(4, "LONG1 100", 9) = 9 close(4) = 0 I don't see anthing confusing here ;-) Regards, Nadia > > >>Defining brand new syscalls is very touchy: needs to be careful about the >>interface + I can't imagine the number of syscalls that would be >>needed. > > > Of course new syscalls is touchy... modifying _existing_ should be > even more touchy. > > Pavel > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel