Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:05:03 +0300 | From | Muli Ben-Yehuda <> | Subject | Re: export of sys_call_table |
| |
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:58:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Sort of. They've broken IA64 oprofile, and they seem not to care.
They've also broken syscalltrack, and I'll be surprised if they care.
Would someone please explain to me why a mechanism which *is* safe under certain circumstances[1] is removed *without any suitable alternative for modules*[2], just because it's "ugly"? We've had this discussion before, numerous times. Ref: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101820103913072&w=2
I agree that it should not be done. I maintain that sometimes, if you want to keep your code as a module only (because forcing users to recompile their kernel is not a viable solution) it can be done safely if you observe certain precautions and your architecture supports it[3]. So why remove it?
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=kernelnewbies&m=102267164910800&w=2, http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101821127019203&w=2
[2] Can the LSM hooks be used for notification and modification on every system call's entry and exit?
[3] I'd like to know if I'm wrong, of course. -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org/ mulix@mulix.org:~$ sctrace strace /bin/foo http://syscalltrack.sf.net/ Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |