pagg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/4] add task handling notifier

To: Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] add task handling notifier
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:31:20 -0800
Cc: jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pagg@xxxxxxxxxxx, erikj@xxxxxxx, matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080108180309.4ccab28d.pj@sgi.com>
References: <476A780C.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20071223122621.GA19310@infradead.org> <20071225140526.547a882f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47838ACB.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20080108141424.de5d8fba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080108180309.4ccab28d.pj@sgi.com>
Sender: pagg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:03:09 -0600
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
> > What are those (unidentified) add-on features doing at present?
> > Patching calls into fork.c/exec.c/exit.c?
> 
> Most likely.  I suspect we have general agreement and awareness
> that such patching is not something that sells well in Linux-land.
> And for good reason in my personal view ... such patching by loadable
> modules could open the door to compromising the integrity of Linux in
> ways that could be dangerous.
> 

err, no.

What I meant was that the providers of these mystery features are
presumably also patching into fork.c/exec.c/exit.c at the source code level
so as to enable the mystery features within their overall kernel package.

If so, this doesn't sounds terribly onerous.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>