Re: IOKit KEXT Question
Re: IOKit KEXT Question
- Subject: Re: IOKit KEXT Question
- From: Amanda Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:33:18 -0400
On Aug 16, 2007, at 2:45 AM, Matt Burnett wrote:
I think the preceding threads prove my point that there is a demand
from the development community to provide kernel hooks even if the
interface is volatile.
There is demand for KPIs. "Kernel Hooks" are a workaround when a KPI
doesn't exist, not a solution, because they rely by definition on a
particular implementation. Just the phrase "patching syscalls"
involves making many implementation assumptions.
. If Apple doesn't provide one, then that makes me think they dont
want to because it could destroy the user expierence with kernel
panics.
No. It means that they want to be free to improve the kernel without
breaking other things.
The downside to that is, if Apple doesn't provide a regulated but
liberal interface into the kernel the developers will create their
own.
And their products will break. Often. This happens even in user
mode--look at the messes created by Application Enhancer.
lol, should i be impressed with your email address as well?
Well, you're the one who asked for assistance, and got the answer
"the approach you describe is a bad idea" from people with a lot of
experience. Nobody can stop you from doing whatever you want, of
course. We can only suggest that it's likely to be an unrewarding
way to go about it.
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden