[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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
> 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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.051 / U:3.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site