Re: Syscall table AKA hijacking syscalls

[Libor Vanek]

Matti Aarnio wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 01:59:08PM +0100, Libor Vanek wrote:
>  
>
> > Hi,
> > I'm writing some project which needs to hijack some syscalls in VFS 
> > layer. AFAIK in 2.6 is this "not-wanted" solution (even that there are 
> >    
> ...
>  
>
> > So what is proper (Linus recommanded) way to do such a things? Create 
> > patches for specific syscalls like "if this_module_installed then 
> > call_this_function;" or try to force things like syscalltrack to go into 
> > vanilla kernel some time? Because what I've found out there are more 
> > projects which suffer from this restriction.
> >    
>
>
> There is, of course, whole slew of politically coloured
> issues with this chainability.
>  

I think that issues with chainability are ALWAYS whenever you try to do 
this hijacking general.


--

Libor Vanek




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/