[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: execve replacement.
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


p.s. abel, your module exit has a horrendous race with module unload, and
processes sleeping in the system call ...

"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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.135 / U:1.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site