From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:58:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:58:33 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:20406 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:58:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 01:06:51 -0500 From: Pete Zaitcev Message-Id: <200304010606.h3166pr27274@devserv.devel.redhat.com> To: "Paul Clements (home)" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: unexporting sys_call_table a good idea? In-Reply-To: References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > [...] it is, > rather than being able to simply compile an external module (which > disables ptrace) and load it on affected systems, I am forced to > recompile an entire kernel, install it on the affected systems, and > reboot them all... > > Thanks, > Paul This is fallacy. How is exporting syscall table going to help you? You still have to recompile entire kernel, install it on the affected systems, and reboot them all, and only then you can use your module. Wouldn't it be easier just to add a sysctl which disables ptrace, instead? -- Pete