lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
FromArjan van de Ven <>
DateTue, 28 Jun 2005 22:11:02 +0200
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:52 -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:31:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> >>
> >> > It would probably be better implemented with a more generic mechanism,
> >> > but I don't believe anyone is working on that now, so it looks like AFS
> >> > will continue to use a special syscall.
> >>
> >> We could put an #ifdef CONFIG_AFS into the syscall table definition?
> >> That makes it explicit.
>
> > No. AFS is utterly wrong, and the sooner we make it fail to work the
> > better.
>
> Heh, well that is nice, but breaking it will only mean that I and every
> other AFS user will have to revert the patch that breaks it;
> furthermore, many distributions that provide binary kernels will
> probably also have to revert the patch because many of their users will
> want to use AFS.

AFS isn't even using it... after all it's not even exported.


-
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: 2005-06-28 22:22    [from the cache]
©2003-2010