Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:31:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> 
> > It would probably be better implemented with a more generic mechanism,
> > but I don't believe anyone is working on that now, so it looks like AFS
> > will continue to use a special syscall.
> 
> We could put an #ifdef CONFIG_AFS into the syscall table definition?
> That makes it explicit.

No.  AFS is utterly wrong, and the sooner we make it fail to work the better.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]