lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: execve replacement.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Brian Gerst wrote:

> John Levon wrote:
> > anyway, you can just put refcounts in your hijacked system calls; that is
> > the safe way to do it, and doesn't require any kernel patches, just extra
> > cost in the intercepted system calls.
> >
> > e.g. :
> >
> > my_syswhatever(...)
> > {
> > MOD_INC_USE_COUNT;
> > original_syswhatever(...);
> > MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT;
> > }
> >
> > Can you explain to me the race with this approach ?
>
> There is a small period of time between the last MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT and
> the return of the function where the module could be unloaded by another
> CPU (SMP only). It is a tiny race window, but still possible.
>

Wouldn't this require another module to be loaded inbetween the
MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT, and the function exit, to actually be dangerous ?

I don't know ...

john

--
"The Internet is a shallow and unreliable electronic repository of dirty pictures, inaccurate rumors,
bad spelling and worse grammar, inhabited largely by people with no demonstrable social skills."
- Chronicle of Higher Education

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.058 / U:4.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site