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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu
Date: Monday, July 7, 2008 - 9:33 am

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:16:51 -0400
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:


Actually it isn't that bad if you do it like dlsym()/dlopen() do it in
userspace. That is, have the system linker fill in dynamic syscalls,
possibly in a separate ELF section. This way you could version syscalls.

Furthermore, it may make sense to implement all syscalls through glibc,
so that the burden of maintaining obsolete/modified syscalls does not
fall onto the kernel. This already happens for most syscalls, but the
rest (mostly those Linux-specific) still rely on syscall numbers
defined as macros.

But that still will _not_ solve the problem, because:
- there are users which will only use older libc versions
- there are statically linked executables
- the modified/new syscall might not provide the same behavior, even
when used through a compatibility (glibc) wrapper

IOW, this problem can be reduced to any other instance where protocols
or APIs get changed. This usually isn't a problem, but the kernel can't
afford bloat to maintain compatibility.

I hope this makes the issue more clear.


	Cheers,
	Eduard
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Suggestion: LKM should be able to add system call for ..., Arjan van de Ven, (Mon Jul 7, 12:01 am)
Re: Suggestion: LKM should be able to add system call for ..., Eduard - Gabriel Mun ..., (Mon Jul 7, 9:33 am)