Re: Syscall table AKA hijacking syscalls

[Libor Vanek <libor@conet.cz>]

>>I'm writing some project which needs to hijack some syscalls in VFS 
>>layer. AFAIK in 2.6 is this "not-wanted" solution (even that there are 
>>some very nasty ways of doing it - see 
>>http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/2002-12/msg00266.html )
>>
>>Also I've found out that Linus stated that intercepting syscalls is "bad 
>>thing" (load module a, load module b, unload module b => crash) but I 
>>think that there are some very good reasons (and ways) to do it (see 
>>http://syscalltrack.sourceforge.net ). My main reason to do it is that I 
>>want my GPLed module to be able to modify some VFS syscalls without 
>>patching and recompiling whole kernel and rebooting the machine.
>>    
>>
>
>As part of the openxdsm-project we wrote an syscall-intercept module
>that "solves" the (load module a, load module b, unload module b =>
>crash) part by providing a common infrastructure for intercepting
>syscalls.
>  
>
The code looks very nice'n'simple but it won't run on 2.6 because 
mentioned hidden sys_call_table. But I can imagine that this with some 
small tweaks can be integrated into 2.6 to provide generall 
infrastructure for syscall hijacking when really needed.


-- 

Libor Vanek