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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site