Quoting Murat Balaban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It might be that you have some bad address in the execve index of sysent > array.
This is likely. He could add a printf statement before calling the original execve just to be sure. > See http://www.enderunix.org/murat/linux_subexec/linux_subexec.c for a simple > example. This is 4.X specific (proc usage). I would just like to note that there is an execve symbol which you can reference in your code directly (rather than creating your own pointer for deinitialization). EX: -sysent[SYS_execve].sy_call = (sy_call_t *)oldexecve; +sysent[SYS_execve].sy_call = (sy_call_t *)execve; On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:53:30AM -0800, Kai Zhu wrote: [...] > > As you can see, I first just want to make sure that my_execve won't affect > the original execve, then I will add some new logic in my_execve before > returning to execve(). How exactly are you modifying the system call entry table? Are you modifying sysent even? -- +-----------------------------------+ | Samy Al Bahra | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |-----------------------------------| | B3A7 F5BE B2AE 67B1 AC4B | | 0983 956D 1F4A AA54 47CB | |-----------------------------------| | http://www.kerneled.com | +-----------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
