From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] dynamic syscalls revisited
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:03:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1102356196.25841.204.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412061026490.5219@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 10:32 -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
>
> I didn't know we were on a crusade to end all binary modules at all costs.
> Why not just make _all_ symbols in the kernel EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then? I
> really believe this is taking things to new levels of silliness, we should
> also possibly consider adding code in glibc to stop proprietary
> libraries/applications from running. What do you think?
Personally? I don't really care. But what goes in the main linux kernel
is decided by Linus, and he doesn't want dynamic system calls because...
Back in 2000 Linus wrote:
The problem is that dynamic system calls are not going to happen.
Why?
License issues. I will not allow system calls to be added from modules.
Because I do not think that adding a system call is a valid thing for a
module to do. It's that easy.
It's the old thing about "hooks". You must not sidestep the GPL by just
putting a hook in place. And dynamic system calls are the ultimate hook.
Linus
And I was just trying to solve the one reason that I can understand why
Linus doesn't want dynamic system calls. If Linus had not stated this, I
would not be changing my original patch (which is still available and
doesn't do any of this nastiness).
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-06 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-29 15:11 [PATCH][RFC] dynamic syscalls revisited Steven Rostedt
2004-11-29 15:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-11-29 15:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-11-30 19:30 ` Kristian Sørensen
2004-11-29 16:41 ` [RFC] " Jan Engelhardt
2004-11-29 17:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-12-05 23:46 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-12-06 16:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-12-06 17:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-12-06 17:32 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-12-06 17:57 ` linux-os
2004-12-06 18:03 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2004-12-06 18:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-12-07 0:20 ` Michael Buesch
2004-12-07 0:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-12-06 21:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2004-12-06 22:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-12-06 22:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2004-12-06 22:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-12-14 23:14 ` Werner Almesberger
2004-12-15 2:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2004-12-15 3:35 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1102356196.25841.204.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox