On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:41:34 -0400 Igor Shmukler wrote: | Hello, | | Thanks to everyone for replying. | It is surprising to me that linux-kernel people decided to disallow | interception of system calls. | I don't really see any upside to this.
Upside ? | I guess if there is no clean way to do this, we will have to resort to | quick and dirty. | | Can anyone point to a discussion that yielded this decision. Perhaps, | I need to educate myself. I stumbled upon comments that this can lead | to mess, but pretty much anything in LKM can cause problems. I don't | think that hiding commonly used convenient interfaces just because | they can be abused is a valid reason, hence I would love to know what | is the real reason. What "commonly used convenient interfaces"? I don't claim to remember all of the reasons. A couple of them are: a. it's racy b. it's not architecture-independent | Thank you, | | Igor | | | On 4/15/05, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 14:04 -0400, Igor Shmukler wrote: | > > Hello, | > > We are working on a LKM for the 2.6 kernel. | > > We HAVE to intercept system calls. I understand this could be | > > something developers are no encouraged to do these days, but we need | > > this. | > | > your module is GPL licensed right ? (You're depending on deep internals | > after all) | > | > Why do you *have* to intercept system calls... can't you instead use the | > audit infrastructure to get that information ? | > | > What is the URL of your current code so that we can provide reasonable | > recommendations ? | - --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/