Re: Notification of fork()
Re: Notification of fork()
- Subject: Re: Notification of fork()
- From: "Curtis Jones" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:38:56 -0500
On 12/26/06, Josh Rodatus <email@hidden> wrote:
Albeit somewhat brute-force, Jonathan Rentzsch's mach_override can
solve a lot of tough problems.
With some adaption, you could use it to override the kernel's
pset_add_task(processor_set_t pset, task_t task) or similar function
with your own version. In this case you would simply get the needed
information out of the task_t before calling the real pset_add_task.
Since mach_override would need adaption for use within the kernel, and
it's also processor-dependent, you could write your own special-purpose
overriding routine based on the same principles.
That is very interesting. I'm looking at it right now. Certainly it is
more invasive than what I had in mind, but I'm not really in a
position to be picky if it works.
I noticed in the documentation that he intends to one day add
"mach_unoverride" support. So, what does this mean when my kext
unloads?
--
Curtis Jones
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden