lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: export of sys_call_table
    On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:58:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:

    > Sort of. They've broken IA64 oprofile, and they seem not to care.

    They've also broken syscalltrack, and I'll be surprised if they care.

    Would someone please explain to me why a mechanism which *is* safe
    under certain circumstances[1] is removed *without any suitable
    alternative for modules*[2], just because it's "ugly"? We've had this
    discussion before, numerous times. Ref:
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101820103913072&w=2

    I agree that it should not be done. I maintain that sometimes, if you
    want to keep your code as a module only (because forcing users to
    recompile their kernel is not a viable solution) it can be done safely
    if you observe certain precautions and your architecture supports
    it[3]. So why remove it?

    [1]
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=kernelnewbies&m=102267164910800&w=2,
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101821127019203&w=2

    [2] Can the LSM hooks be used for notification and modification on
    every system call's entry and exit?

    [3] I'd like to know if I'm wrong, of course.
    --
    Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org/
    mulix@mulix.org:~$ sctrace strace /bin/foo http://syscalltrack.sf.net/
    Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.021 / U:1.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site