Linux-Kernel-System-Call | system call named processinfo to the Linux kernel

by aydanurakca C Version: Current License: MIT

X-Ray Key Features Code Snippets Community Discussions(3)Vulnerabilities Install Support

kandi X-RAY | Linux-Kernel-System-Call Summary

Linux-Kernel-System-Call is a C library typically used in Ubuntu applications. Linux-Kernel-System-Call has no bugs, it has no vulnerabilities, it has a Permissive License and it has low support. You can download it from GitHub.

This is the implementation of a system call named processinfo to the Linux kernel.

Support

Quality

Security

License

Reuse

Support

Linux-Kernel-System-Call has a low active ecosystem.

It has 5 star(s) with 0 fork(s). There are 1 watchers for this library.

It had no major release in the last 6 months.

Linux-Kernel-System-Call has no issues reported. There are no pull requests.

It has a neutral sentiment in the developer community.

The latest version of Linux-Kernel-System-Call is current.

Quality

Linux-Kernel-System-Call has no bugs reported.

Security

Linux-Kernel-System-Call has no vulnerabilities reported, and its dependent libraries have no vulnerabilities reported.

License

Linux-Kernel-System-Call is licensed under the MIT License. This license is Permissive.

Permissive licenses have the least restrictions, and you can use them in most projects.

Reuse

Linux-Kernel-System-Call releases are not available. You will need to build from source code and install.

Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA

kandi's functional review helps you automatically verify the functionalities of the libraries and avoid rework.
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of Linux-Kernel-System-Call

Get all kandi verified functions for this library.

Linux-Kernel-System-Call Key Features

No Key Features are available at this moment for Linux-Kernel-System-Call.

Linux-Kernel-System-Call Examples and Code Snippets

No Code Snippets are available at this moment for Linux-Kernel-System-Call.

Community Discussions

Trending Discussions on Linux-Kernel-System-Call

Is it necessary to call set_memory_rw after disabling CR0 "Write Protect" to modify read only pages in Linux kernel?

Trying to hook a linux kernel system call

Why System Call returns -1 instead of actual error code

QUESTION

Is it necessary to call set_memory_rw after disabling CR0 "Write Protect" to modify read only pages in Linux kernel?

Asked 2021-Jun-01 at 13:14

Consider the following question on Stack Overflow on system call hooking by modifying the sys_call_table.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2103315/linux-kernel-system-call-hooking-example

Since CR0 "Write Protect" (bit 16) controls whether it's possible for the kernel to write to read-only pages, why does some code then calls set_memory_rw to set the permissions for the target pages to RW?

...

ANSWER

Answered 2021-May-12 at 09:53

No.

The CR0.WP method disables write protect support globally, whereas the set_memory_rw method merely adds the write bit to specific pages. If you have already disabled write protection through the control register, then there is no need to do anything else. All kernel memory will be globally writable from within the kernel until you re-enable write protection through the same register.

Make sure you disable interrupts before writing to CR0, then re-enable them afterwards.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67789564

QUESTION

Trying to hook a linux kernel system call

Asked 2020-Sep-24 at 12:28

I am trying to hook a system call from a linux kernel custom module.

The module loads but printk doesn't seem to print anything to dmesg from the new function.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2020-Sep-24 at 12:28

Turned out I had to replace openat instead of open. And the way you do it is:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64015054

QUESTION

Why System Call returns -1 instead of actual error code

Asked 2020-Jun-03 at 18:15

I was learning about Linux Kernel in one of the course. I got to know that the C library returns -1 on error and sets the errno variable to actual error. Below is the lecture slide which says the same thing.

My question is, why can't the C library return the return code directly instead of returning -1?

Note: This question may seem duplicate of this one. But referenced question answers what, my question is more related to the why.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2020-Jun-03 at 11:34

I think there are some possible reasons.

Firstly, this design is normal in C/C++, we get a return noted successful/fail, and if you want to get detail error message you can get it. This makes the return more uniform, and it becomes a normal use way. What's more, there maybe some time you just need to check whether a function works or not, you don't need to get the answer.

Secondly, this may be a historical design remained. There are many old desgin of C/C++, the reason we still remain them is because the cost of change it is too heavy and we don't get anything wrong if we don't change it.

I'm not sure my answer is totaly right, they're just some possible reasons and may help you.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62154841

Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network

Vulnerabilities

No vulnerabilities reported

Install Linux-Kernel-System-Call

You can download it from GitHub.

Support

For any new features, suggestions and bugs create an issue on GitHub. If you have any questions check and ask questions on community page Stack Overflow .

Find more information at: