Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:08:13 -0400 | From | Brian Gerst <> | Subject | Re: execve replacement. |
| |
John Levon wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Brian Gerst wrote: > > > "it doesn't work well" is a bit vague... > > > > I am guessing that you are getting an unresolved symbol. Modifying the > > system call table is not and probably never will be available for > > modules. The syscall table is very architecture dependant, and is not > > exported to modules. > > This isn't true, you can replace syscalls fine in modules on x86. I can't > comment on other architectures. It's rarely a good idea though of course. > > You might want to check out the "overloader" module at > http://bdolez.free.fr/ > > john > > p.s. abel, your module exit has a horrendous race with module unload, and > processes sleeping in the system call ...
Even your overloader has a small module unload race. The only 100% race-free way is to put module usage counting into the core kernel, like the VFS changes with ->open that were done in 2.3.x. This would mean added overhead for all syscalls, so many people would oppose this.
--
Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |