From: Jeff Dike <jdike@ka...> - 2003-02-08 04:26:22
> [ 0 ] = sys_ni_syscall, which suggests to me that system call 0 is
> not implemented. Why, then, is it being called so often?
That's a bit strange. Where are they being called from? I've never seen
a syscall 0 executed.
From: Guy, Jeffrey R. <JEFFREY.R.GUY@sa...> - 2003-02-10 15:16:48
The code I added, right after the EXECUTE_SYSCALL(syscall,regs) was my code
to find the system call information. But instead of inserting it directly
into execute_syscall, I just put a call to a function that keeps track of
information, like the system call number and the return value. I originally
passed one parameter to this function: regs. But I think that variable
(somehow beyond my scope of understanding) is unstable and being corrupted.
Now I have a version which passes two parameters to my function: syscall
In 2.4.18, syscall is already a variable in execute_syscall, so I just pass
it on. In 2.4.19, the syscall variable is automatically created in
tt/syscall_user.c in the function syscall_handler_tt. And in 2.4.19's
skas/syscall_user.c, I had to create the variable: int
Weird system calls no longer show up. They still have weird return codes,
but I think that that's the same bug and I'll just have to pass this third
parameter (the return code) into my recording function. But I'll get around
to that in the next few days. For now, I have a different (more important,
I think) thing that I'm working through. [see my next post for more
Thanks for your help. I should have re:posted when I found my original post
probably had inaccurate information in it. I apologize.
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.