"Philippe Elie" <phil.el@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> From: "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@tmr.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:48 PM
>
> > For legitimate use, if any, a compile-time optional system call could be
> > added requiring a capability to use, and programs which are currently
> > doing that (AFS?) can be converted to use another f/s interface. I have
> > seen a few mentions of software which DO use that capability, I'm not sure
> > I've seen one which can be done no other way.
>
> As stated oprofile needs it, there is no other efficient way to track exec,
> mmap and other sys call needed for profiler. I hope a consensus can
> be reach : explain than unloading module wich patch the sys call table
> are unsafe on SMP, discourage the use of sys call table patch, but do
> not forbid that.
In times past when people were working on the vm86 system call you needed
a modified version of insmod, that could read System.map.
If you are going to be doing strange things I don't see why that shouldn't
still be required.
Though I am wondering if the sane approach for a profiler might not to be
have a kernel conditional compilation directive that simply patches
the syscall path. The overhead is probably less as well.
Eric
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 22:00:11 EST