Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 May 2003 23:48:11 +0200 | From | "J.A. Magallon" <> | Subject | Re: The disappearing sys_call_table export. |
| |
On 05.08, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:10:21PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > >Maybe you have a different notion of proper mechanism then everyone > > >else. > > > > > Out of personal interest - would a mechanism that promised the following > > be considered a "proper mechanism"? > > 1. Work on all platforms. > > 2. Allow load and unload in arbitrary order and timings (which also > > means "be race free"). > > 3. Have low/zero overhead if not used > > No, the most important point is that a proper meachanism wouldn't > replace syscall slots but rather operate on kernel objects (file, inode > vma, task_struct, etc..). Linus has expressed a few times that > he has no interest in loadable syscalls and any core developer I've > talked to agrees with that. >
Don't have followed the whole thread, so I don't know if somebody has already said this, but all this thing about hooks looks perfect for projects like bproc or mosix, have you talked to them ? (perhaps Erik Hendriks <erik@hendriks.cx> -bproc- is following the thread...;) )
-- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon@able.es> \ Software is like sex: werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (Cooker) for i586 Linux 2.4.21-rc1-jam2 (gcc 3.2.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.2.2-5mdk)) - 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/
| |