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
    David,

    How many other architecture-specific exported symbols are there?

    It appears to me that many of the system calls themselves are
    architecture-specific, particularly so where 64-bit machines
    are involved. Is that a reason to not make them accessible?

    --brian

    On Fri, 04 Oct 2002, David S. Miller wrote:

    > From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
    > Date: 03 Oct 2002 23:02:40 +0100
    >
    > Overwriting syscall table entries is not safe. Its not safe because
    > there is no locking mechanism, and its not safe because of the pentium
    > III errata.
    >
    > It is also non-portable, such syscall overwriting requires knowledge
    > of the layout of the table on every architecture. On some platforms
    > it is a list of pointers + argument count, on some 64-bit platforms
    > it is a list of 32-bit truncated pointers to save space.
    >
    > There is simply no portable way to make changes to the system call
    > table, so exporting it makes zero sense.

    --
    Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
    bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
    http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
    ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
    ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.024 / U:0.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site