Re: intercepting syscalls

[Igor Shmukler <igor.shmukler@gmail.com>]

Hello,

Thanks to everyone for replying.
It is surprising to me that linux-kernel people decided to disallow
interception of system calls.
I don't really see any upside to this.
I guess if there is no clean way to do this, we will have to resort to
quick and dirty.

Can anyone point to a discussion that yielded this decision. Perhaps,
I need to educate myself. I stumbled upon comments that this can lead
to mess, but pretty much anything in LKM can cause problems. I don't
think that hiding commonly used convenient interfaces just because
they can be abused is a valid reason, hence I would love to know what
is the real reason.

Thank you,

Igor


On 4/15/05, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 14:04 -0400, Igor Shmukler wrote:
> > Hello,
> > We are working on a LKM for the 2.6 kernel.
> > We HAVE to intercept system calls. I understand this could be
> > something developers are no encouraged to do these days, but we need
> > this.
> 
> your module is GPL licensed right ? (You're depending on deep internals
> after all)
> 
> Why do you *have* to intercept system calls... can't you instead use the
> audit infrastructure to get that information ?
> 
> What is the URL of your current code so that we can provide reasonable
> recommendations ?
-
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/