torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) wrote:
> David Howells <David.Howells@nexor.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Oliver Neukum <Oliver.Neukum@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
> >> > (3) Even if it was... just filling in the syscall slot from a module means
> >> > that it is possible for the module to be unloaded whilst the syscall is in
> >> > use.
>
> Note that all this is not the problem.
>
> The problem is that dynamic system calls are not going to happen.
>
> 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.
What about nfsd's "nfsservctl" syscall then? This appears to be modulable...
Anyway, I didn't mean using a random syscall number provided by the kernel
upon loading the module, but having one number preallocated for the purpose as
is done in knfsd.
Do you think, then, that I should be putting my stuff up for inclusion in the
kernel proper (say v2.5)? Or do you think I shouldn't be using a syscall at
all? Or should I just be offering it as a kernel patch that has to be applied
for use?
David Howells
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST