| 1 |
On Monday 22 September 2003 23:47, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The bigger issue, is that late 2.5 and now 2.6 kernels do not allow |
| 4 |
> you to replace system calls (something needed for a module like this). |
| 5 |
> This will then either force us to not use this for 2.6, or hack the |
| 6 |
> kernel, which will really limit the user. On another note - I do not |
| 7 |
> know if the new API and hooks added for the security modules might |
| 8 |
> enable us to have the same end result as hooking system calls with |
| 9 |
> our own would have done ... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The approach I am thinking about should not replace system calls. It should |
| 13 |
provide a separate filesystem driver similar to the bind mount driver. But |
| 14 |
kernel modules have indeed that big disadvantage. It could only be optional. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Paul |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 20 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 21 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 22 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives