Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:42:00 +0100 (BST) | From | John Levon <> | Subject | Re: 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 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 ...
-- "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/
|  |