Re: [RFC] dynamic syscalls revisited

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:10:58PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 17:41 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > I do not see how dsyscalls could be better than static ones, so they are
> > one-on-one. Maybe someone could elaborate why they are "a really bad idea"?
> 
> The one argument against them, that I agree with, is Linus' hooks to
> avoid the GPL.  A binary only module could easily add their own hooks
> into the kernel.
> 
> I've made this patch with the option to turn this off. I should have put
> the option in Kernel debugging with the default off (the default is
> currently on so that if you apply the patch, you have it automatically).
> This way binary only modules can't take advantage of the dynamic
> syscalls without recompiling the kernel.  If the user needed to compile
> the kernel, then a patch can easily be added, so this is just as good of
> a defense. 

Why don't you EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL dsyscall_{,un}register?

This should at least fix the binary only module concerns.

> -- Steve

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/