Re: The disappearing sys_call_table export.

[J.A. Magallon]

On 05.08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:10:21PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 
> > >Maybe you have a different notion of proper mechanism then everyone
> > >else.
> > >
> > Out of personal interest - would a mechanism that promised the following 
> > be considered a "proper mechanism"?
> > 1. Work on all platforms.
> > 2. Allow load and unload in arbitrary order and timings (which also 
> > means "be race free").
> > 3. Have low/zero overhead if not used
> 
> No, the most important point is that a proper meachanism wouldn't
> replace syscall slots but rather operate on kernel objects (file, inode
> vma, task_struct, etc..).  Linus has expressed a few times that
> he has no interest in loadable syscalls and any core developer I've
> talked to agrees with that.
> 

Don't have followed the whole thread, so I don't know if somebody has already
said this, but all this thing about hooks looks perfect for projects like
bproc or mosix, have you talked to them ?
(perhaps Erik Hendriks <[e-mail]> -bproc- is following the thread...;) )

-- 
J.A. Magallon <[e-mail]>      \                 Software is like sex:
werewolf.able.es                         \           It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.4.21-rc1-jam2 (gcc 3.2.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.2.2-5mdk))