Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:39:04 +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 ) >> >>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. > > The code looks very nice'n'simple but it won't run on 2.6 because mentioned hidden sys_call_table. But I can imagine that this with some small tweaks can be integrated into 2.6 to provide generall infrastructure for syscall hijacking when really needed.
--
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/
| |