[Devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] Add checkpoint support for veth devices (v2)

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Dan Smith (danms at us.ibm.com):
> >> +	else if (!ckpt_obj_lookup(ctx, peer->nd_net, CKPT_OBJ_NET_NS)) {
> >> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> >> +		ckpt_err(ctx, ret,
> >> +			 "Peer %s of %s not in checkpointed namespaces\n",
> >> +			 peer->name, dev->name);
> 
> SH> I'm not sure this check does what you think it does: note that
> SH> ckpt_netdev_base(), defined in the previous patch, and called
> SH> higher up in this function, is going to checkpoint peer->nd_net.
> SH> :)
> 
> Actually, no, ckpt_netdev_base() can't checkpoint peer->nd_net because
> it's device-agnostic and has no knowledge of dev->peer.

Oh, ok.

> The idea here was that we checkpoint a netns when we arrive at it via
> nsproxy.  Doing that, we checkpoint the devices within.  We encounter
> a veth device, which has a peer, so we decide if:
> 
>  1. We won't arrive at the peer later because it is in the init
>     namespace, so we checkpoint it now.
>  2. We will arrive at it later because the peer's netns is in the list
>     we've already collected, so checkpoint the peer with its namespace
>  3. Neither are true and we won't arrive at it later and therefore we
>     can't allow checkpoint to continue
> 
> #2 depends on the collect process having put all the task's netns' in
>  the hash ahead of time.

Right, that was what I was originally starting to hunt down when I
thought I saw ckpt_netdev_base() checkpointing peer's netns.

So do you actually know that the peer's netns will have been
checkpointed?  I'm a little fuzzy about where netns and netdevs
are checkpointed.  If you have two private netns's in a container,
with a veth connecting them, and you checkpoint a task in netns 1,
will you fail bc netns 2 hasn't been checkpointed yet bc no task in
it has been checkpointed yet?

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers