On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:02:10AM +0300, Samy Al Bahra wrote:
+> > 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
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 f
Thanks Murat! I have tried your example, and fixed the problem of my code accordingly.
Murat Balaban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
It might be that you have some bad address in the execve index of sysent array.
See http://www.enderunix.org/murat/linux_subexec/linux_subexec.c for a simple example
Hi,
It might be that you have some bad address in the execve index of sysent array.
See http://www.enderunix.org/murat/linux_subexec/linux_subexec.c for a simple example.
PS: don't mind the naming :).
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:53:30AM -0800, Kai Zhu wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am writing a KLD
Hello all,
I am writing a KLD module to intercept execve() as following:
static int my_execve(struct thread *td, struct execve_args *uap)
{
return(execve(td,uap));
}
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 log
5 matches
Mail list logo
