Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:57:13 +0100 | From | Ragnar Kjørstad <> | Subject | Re: Syscall table AKA hijacking syscalls |
| |
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 > some very nasty ways of doing it - see > http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/2002-12/msg00266.html ) > > Also I've found out that Linus stated that intercepting syscalls is "bad > thing" (load module a, load module b, unload module b => crash) but I > think that there are some very good reasons (and ways) to do it (see > http://syscalltrack.sourceforge.net ). My main reason to do it is that I > want my GPLed module to be able to modify some VFS syscalls without > patching and recompiling whole kernel and rebooting the machine.
As part of the openxdsm-project we wrote an syscall-intercept module that "solves" the (load module a, load module b, unload module b => crash) part by providing a common infrastructure for intercepting syscalls.
It's available at: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/openxdsm/openxdsm/eventmodule/module/events.c?rev=1.1.1.1&view=auto
-- Ragnar Kjørstad - 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/
| |