Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386

Arjan van de Ven
2005-06-28T20:15:42Z

On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:52 -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:31:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> >>
> >> > It would probably be better implemented with a more generic mechanism,
> >> > but I don't believe anyone is working on that now, so it looks like AFS
> >> > will continue to use a special syscall.
> >>
> >> We could put an #ifdef CONFIG_AFS into the syscall table definition?
> >> That makes it explicit.
>
> > No. AFS is utterly wrong, and the sooner we make it fail to work the
> > better.
>
> Heh, well that is nice, but breaking it will only mean that I and every
> other AFS user will have to revert the patch that breaks it;
> furthermore, many distributions that provide binary kernels will
> probably also have to revert the patch because many of their users will
> want to use AFS.

AFS isn't even using it... after all it's not even exported.