linux-kernel - Re: Suggestion: LKM should be able to add system call for itself

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:12:00 -0400
From:	"Jinkai Gao" <mickeygjk@...il.com>
To:	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion: LKM should be able to add system call for itself

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:09:30 -0400
> "Jinkai Gao" <mickeygjk@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Above is to demonstrate that LKM is extension to kernel, and the
>> system calls should be able to extend as long as the kernel is
>> extending. So The LKM should be able to define its own user interface
>> by adding new system call for itself.
>
> Since we promise a stable ABI to userspace, this is a bit of a problem.
>
> But... look today, we already have various system calls implemented by
> modules. (example: sys_nfsservctl)
> but to make it fully dynamic? Not a good idea... nobody would be able
> to program to it.

Why? Using the interface we provide to add and delete system call (the
module can only unregister the system calls registered by itself), all
the existing system calls will be the same. It is just you can have
more system calls then you need, That shouldn't be a problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/