David,
How many other architecture-specific exported symbols are there?
It appears to me that many of the system calls themselves are
architecture-specific, particularly so where 64-bit machines
are involved. Is that a reason to not make them accessible?
--brian
On Fri, 04 Oct 2002, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Date: 03 Oct 2002 23:02:40 +0100
>
> Overwriting syscall table entries is not safe. Its not safe because
> there is no locking mechanism, and its not safe because of the pentium
> III errata.
>
> It is also non-portable, such syscall overwriting requires knowledge
> of the layout of the table on every architecture. On some platforms
> it is a list of pointers + argument count, on some 64-bit platforms
> it is a list of 32-bit truncated pointers to save space.
>
> There is simply no portable way to make changes to the system call
> table, so exporting it makes zero sense.
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:47 EST