[PATCH] Remove sys_call_table export
The following patch removes the export of the sys_call_table. There are no uses of this export that are valid and correct. The uses I've found so far are 1. Calling syscalls from inside kernel modules iBCS/Linux-abi used to do this (and this is the reason for the export in the first place), however it does no longer, because newer gcc's (2.96/3.x) don't allow function pointer calls with a mismatching type. Also it's much better to just call the sys_foo functions directly (most are export symbol'd already and exporting more if needed wouldn't be a problem, they are clearly a stable interface). Since gcc does no longer allow this (and I doubt older ones allowed it for all platforms) this I consider invalid and unneeded use. 2. Install new syscalls from kernel modules LiS seems to be doing this. The correct way to do this is how NFS does it for its syscall, and that doesn't need the syscall table to be exported for this. Without an in-kernel helper like NFS has, it is not possible to do this race free wrt module-unloads etc. Eg this use of the export is unneeded and incorrect. 3. Intercept system calls OProfile (and intel's vtune which is similar in function) used to do this; however what they really need is a notification on certain events (exec() mostly). The way modules do this is store the original function pointer, install a new one that calls the old one after storing whatever info they need. This mechanism breaks badly in the light of multiple such modules doing this versus modules unloading/uninstalling their handlers (by restoring their saved pointer that may or may not point to a valid handler anymore). Eg the use of the export in this just a bandaid due to lack of a proper mechanism, and also incorrect and crash prone. 4. Extend system calls The mechanism for this is identical to the previous one, except that now the actual syscall behavior is changed. I don't think open source modules do this (generally they don't need to, just adding things to the kernel proper works for them), however I've seen IBM's closed source cluster fs do this. The objections to the mechanism are the same as in 3. Also this changes the userspace ABI effectively, something which is undesireable.
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment