Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:44:05 -0600 | From | "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <> | Subject | Re: export of sys_call_table |
| |
David,
How many other architecture-specific exported symbols are there?
It appears to me that many of the system calls themselves are architecture-specific, particularly so where 64-bit machines are involved. Is that a reason to not make them accessible?
--brian
On Fri, 04 Oct 2002, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> > Date: 03 Oct 2002 23:02:40 +0100 > > Overwriting syscall table entries is not safe. Its not safe because > there is no locking mechanism, and its not safe because of the pentium > III errata. > > It is also non-portable, such syscall overwriting requires knowledge > of the layout of the table on every architecture. On some platforms > it is a list of pointers + argument count, on some 64-bit platforms > it is a list of 32-bit truncated pointers to save space. > > There is simply no portable way to make changes to the system call > table, so exporting it makes zero sense.
-- Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦ bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦ http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦ ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦ ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |