From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261250AbVF1UPm (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:15:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261344AbVF1UPP (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:15:15 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:47297 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261250AbVF1ULR (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:11:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <87vf3y2qzz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> References: <87oe9q70no.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <87hdfi704d.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <20050628194215.GB32240@infradead.org> <87vf3y2qzz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:11:02 +0200 Message-Id: <1119989463.3175.49.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (3.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:52 -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > Christoph Hellwig 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.