Re: Low-cost hooks, multiple modules, per-task data

Previous message: Andrew Morgan: "Re: Inodes hooks example"
In reply to: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Low-cost hooks, multiple modules, per-task data"
Next in thread: Chris Wright: "Re: Low-cost hooks, multiple modules, per-task data"
Reply: Chris Wright: "Re: Low-cost hooks, multiple modules, per-task data"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

karymat_private

Crispin Cowan wrote:
> 
> I think that the self-modifying-code approach is likely to bounce, as it
> completely breaks on ROM'd systems.  With Linux's current momentum into embedded
> space, I suspect that self-modifying code would be rejected out of hand.
> 

I personnally have many occasions to see how Linux gets to be used in
the embedded world and must admit that very few people choose to play
things this way, even though this scheme has received its share of
publicity. The reality is that most people will have a flash image
that uncompresses in real RAM. For the zealous, I'd suggest a slower
way of doing things (if(hook_active) call_hook()). Or course, both
could be transparent as far as what the added code looks like.

That being said, I'm no expert at what goes in and what doesn't, so
there is a possibility it may bounce, but there's no harm in trying
to push the optimal solution.

Cheers,

Karim

===================================================
                 Karim Yaghmour
               karymat_private
      Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module