On Monday, July 05, 2004 01:21:24 +0200 Alexander Bostr�m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
m�n 2004-07-05 klockan 00.41 skrev Jeffrey Hutzelman:On Sunday, July 04, 2004 23:44:07 +0200 Tomas Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Besides, I'm not sure that patching the syscall table is all that > beautiful a practice.
No, of course not. There should be a registration mechansim.
A generic registration mechanism was proposed and rejected in this thread: http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/1158.html.
Yup. The basic argument is that directly replacing an entry in sys_call_table is not actually safe on some architectures. A reasonable alternative (a secondary dispatch table used by sys_ni_syscall()) was proposed and rejected.
Did anyone even propose a patch that added a hook for the AFS syscall specifically?
Yes. I don't recall whether this was discussed on lkml or done entirely out-of-band. It was proposed. It never happened.
The kernel developers decided that modules shouldn't register syscalls, they should all be in the kernel at compile time.
Because, of course, the kernel developers have already thought of all functionality that anyone might ever need.
AFS didn't actually need the syscall
... except to set initial CM configuration, start our various kernel threads, manage PAGs and tokens, and perform control operations on files in AFS. If you don't care about doing any of those things, then sure, we don't need the syscall.
_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
