| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <f44001920904220746k356550abk6783b8cae003685d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:46:56 +0400 From: Igor Zhbanov <izh1979@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: Idea: Feature information / extensions dispatcher syscall. 2009/4/22 Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>: > Igor Zhbanov <izh1979@...il.com> writes: >> >> This allow to use system calls in any extension modules without need to reserve >> syscall number in kernel source and allow binaries to run correctly on >> any kernel >> (where that extension feature can have another syscall number). >> >> What do you think? > > You're trying to reinvent the vfs / device nodes / ioctls Perhaps. But in some cases syscalls are more convenient than reading/writing/ioctling in /proc, /sys or /dev. Now as I understand creating new syscalls for "home" use is not encourahed. It is not guaranteed that tomorrow new syscall will not be introduced in mainstream kernel. So portability issues is not considered for "home" modules. And I suggest to regulate syscalls usage and reserve a set of numbers "home" modules used in some organizations only. I don't think that they all will use only devices and /proc and /sys to communicate with their modules. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists