[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: access_ok inside kernelspace
Actually, Ingo - there *is* one case where going through _syscallX() and
therefore int 0x80 from the kernel *is* the only way. This is when the
caller is a module. That is how I call sysfs() from BFS module.

So, if nobody objects to allowing modules to make system calls (as we
established the corruption this morning was just my bug - so behaviour is
valid), I will send this trivial patch to Linus (exporting errno):

--- ksyms.c.0 Tue Oct 19 12:44:53 1999
+++ ksyms.c Tue Oct 19 12:45:15 1999
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
#include <linux/poll.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/capability.h>
+#include <linux/unistd.h>

#if defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
@@ -79,6 +80,9 @@
+/* errno */

/* process memory management */

Tigran A. Aivazian |
Escalations Research Group | tel: +44-(0)1923-813796
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd |
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > why this vendetta against using sys_ functions directly? We dont go
> > through a trap because in most cases that is unnecessery overhead. You are
> > not being logical i think.
> Yes, I understand that overhead is unnecessary. Which is why I now say -
> "why do we do _syscallX() from kernel at all? (other than when we *have*
> to)"
> And example I give is exec_modprobe() doing close(i) when it could just do
> sys_close(i).
> Regards,
> Tigran.
> PS. Thank you for your patient explanations!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean