Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:30:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:30:21 -0500 Received: from [196.12.44.6] ([196.12.44.6]:24280 "EHLO students.iiit.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:30:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:10:56 +0530 (IST) From: Prasad To: lkml Subject: Syscalls on behalf of another process (was Syscalls in kernel space) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1946 Lines: 49 (Resending the previous mail) I am sorry for not being clear the previous time... but i think its time to tell you where i needed it. I, as a graduating project am working on a distributed computing system, a part of which is "transparent process migration in non-distributed environments". In my system i would like to ship the syscalls back to the original node(where the process originated). so for that i have a kernel thread that takes the requests and is supposed to execute the syscalls on behalf of the process (I have the idle task structure existing on the originating node even after the process is migrated to the other node). And the question is how do i do that. The idea I had was to execute the functions behind the syscalls directly, but again, these functions use a lot of 'current'. Could you help me out of this situation! An alternative was that if get_current was called I would check if the 'current' points to my kernel thread and if i have a remote syscall pending, then i would return a pointer to the particular process's task_struct. This I think is a work-around that should work. Please do comment on this too. Prasad. On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > He is talking about directly calling the function behind the syscall, > > not actually executing a syscall itself. > > this is not what I understood from your previous discussion also given > you suggest not to do that when he can call sys_read/sys_write instead > because they're just exported etc.. I just wanted to add a better > "never". > > > syscalls should be made from userspace, not the kernel. > > This is what I tried to say. > > Andrea > -- Failure is not an option - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/