* Karim Yaghmour (karymat_private) wrote: > 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. As I understand, Linus specifically said the he prefers the (call_hook()) where hook may simply return in the noop case over the (if(hook_active) call_hook()). (branch predication killing pipeline with the latter approach). -chris _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 19 2001 - 10:05:56 PDT