From: Sam Vilain (sam_at_vilain.net)
Date: Tue 23 Sep 2003 - 10:41:59 BST
> > > guess we need some central syscall switch, as proposed
> > > by yourself, and a nice (working) concept for context
> > > creation, manipulation and destruction ...
> > Or we reuse some other security framework's system call
> > for that, if possible.
> if appropriate ..
> (I have no problem with sharing ;)
Excellent, so we'd take the problem of allocating a syscall, which
translates to performing an action based on the value of a CPU
register inside the syscall switch, and move it to being a problem for
allocating the values of another kernel-side switch, inside one of
those switches! As Hal Fulton would say, "Complexity cannot be
destroyed, it can only be transferred from one place to another."
Seriously, though - I don't think this is necessarily a good idea
unless there is a strong relevance between the functionality of the
two syscalls, or if they are otherwise grouped. For instance, it
would add complexity to have the quota enhancements use the same
syscalls as set_ipv4root.
-- Sam Vilain, sam_at_vilain.netAn OO surgeon would hand the scalpel to the patient and say: "now perform this operation on yourself!".