[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: intercepting syscalls

    > And 'nobody' has submitted patches that handle all of the described
    > problems...
    > 1. racy
    > 2. architecture-independent
    > 3. stackable (implies/includes unstackable :)
    > You won't get very far in this discussion without some code...

    I agree that if races disallow safe loading unloading it's a serious
    problem. I'll get there pretty soon and I would be very to submit a
    patch. It makes sense to hide interface if currently there is no safe
    way to use it. I understand.

    I don't think that drivers have to be architecture independent. Why is
    this a problem?

    Same regarding stackability. We have a module that works well with
    other modules that intercept system calls just not on Linux. There are
    caveats - not every module will just work with every other module. But
    same problem is with networking protocols. It took time until IPsec
    vendors worked out glitches.

    Usually, it's not necessary to load/unload module to/from the middle
    of the stack all the time.

    I would even agree that it might be beneficial to develop guidelines
    for developing stackable modules that intercept system calls, but I
    think that reasons beyond races are of less importance.

    For RH or SuSE it's very different. If they need something like this
    done, a patch to the kernel and they are good to go. Simple folk still
    has to make software that works with standard kernels and we have to
    be given API that allows us to do this.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-18 18:25    [W:0.020 / U:34.764 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site