Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:26:58 +0100 | From | Libor Vanek <> | Subject | Re: Syscall table AKA hijacking syscalls |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |