Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] dynamic syscalls revisited | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:10:58 -0500 |
| |
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.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |