Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:38:27 +0100 | From | Libor Vanek <> | Subject | Re: Syscall table AKA hijacking syscalls |
| |
>>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 ) >> >> > >Why do you need to hijack system calls from a module? 99% of the >times, it's the wrong technical solution. > > I'm working on my diploma thesis which is adding snapshot capability into Linux VFS (so you can do directory based snapshots - not complete device, like in LVM). It'll consist of two separete modules: Snapshot module: - will hijack (one or another way) calls to open/move/unlink/mkdir/etc. syscall - when will detect change to selected directory (which I want to snapshot), it'll copy/move old file/directory to some temporary (selected when creating snapshot) - in fact - copy on write behaviour
UnionFS module: - will place "temporary" directory with saved files/dirs "over" actual one and result will be read-only snapshot - this can be done without hijacking syscalls probably - something like overlay fs but a bit different
--
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/
| |