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:

> 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.
>
> --

Whose overloader ? I didn't write it ...

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 ?

thanks
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:0.071 / U:32.500 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site