Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mick wrote: Of course not necessary for the kernel (as Michael Weyershäuser already said), but what about the copy of the .config file? OK, copying the .config file to /boot/ would be a good idea if you do so. However it is not necessary to do so, nothing relies on config being present in /boot/, ebuilds that need information about kernel config take that from /usr/src/linux/.config. It is just a (good) practice to keep the config in /boot/ in case you ever need a backup. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFElUsZ6q4f+IV6B/wRAoxPAJsGTejGfL59p75sdAw9iVyI6NxdRwCfWKqp PaKSrkwY6bVf3xME8jtNZZ8= =1+FQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
On 13/06/06, Ryan Tandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony E. Caudel wrote: How? make modules_install or the whole thing: make make modules_install then just modprobe the new module? # make modules modules_install # modprobe module Do you also need to run make install or is it not necessary to copy anything to /boot? -- Regards, Mick -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mick wrote: Do you also need to run make install or is it not necessary to copy anything to /boot? No need for that if you have only added modules. make modules only builds the modules, not the kernel itself, so copying the kernel to /boot wouldn't make any difference as it hasn't changed. But (as stated earlier) you should be sure that you are building the modules for the right kernel version. Maintaining an updated /usr/src/linux symlink helps with that (and is needed for other kernel related ebuilds, too). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFElAZS6q4f+IV6B/wRAofUAJ4+A/+czQpL3NIC9z7MZf/uyUQEowCghFxr 5MzfAQLxBJfcxFS9hNZfbt8= =eL7D -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Mick wrote: On 13/06/06, Ryan Tandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony E. Caudel wrote: How? make modules_install or the whole thing: make make modules_install then just modprobe the new module? # make modules modules_install # modprobe module Do you also need to run make install or is it not necessary to copy anything to /boot? Not necessary. -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
On 17/06/06, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mick wrote: On 13/06/06, Ryan Tandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony E. Caudel wrote: How? make modules_install or the whole thing: make make modules_install then just modprobe the new module? # make modules modules_install # modprobe module Do you also need to run make install or is it not necessary to copy anything to /boot? Not necessary. Of course not necessary for the kernel (as Michael Weyershäuser already said), but what about the copy of the .config file? -- Regards, Mick -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
I like compile-in, generally less work must be done (just a hair, but it is less) On 6/17/06, Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/06/06, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mick wrote: On 13/06/06, Ryan Tandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony E. Caudel wrote: How? make modules_install or the whole thing: make make modules_install then just modprobe the new module? # make modules modules_install # modprobe module Do you also need to run make install or is it not necessary to copy anything to /boot? Not necessary. Of course not necessary for the kernel (as Michael Weyershäuser already said), but what about the copy of the .config file? -- Regards, Mick -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- Erik -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. Note that I'm _NOT_ talking about those modules that have to be compiled in such as for your filesystem. This is about the other ones. I generally like to load them at boot-up. One reason is that I have heard that for suspend or hibernate to work, some modules have to be unloaded. On the other hand, compiling them in results in faster boot times. So, what do gentoo-users think? Tony I have never used any modules that I didn't have to. At this point, I use none. They are all compiled into the kernel, because I don't have a point to unloading or loading. The only point for modules in any of my experience is if you're often changing hardware (possibly a laptop with a base station... or something?) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Teresa and Dale wrote: Care to guess how much I like modules: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # lsmod Module Size Used by nvidia 4551892 12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # I would have that one in there if I could. I never did like them. Why? -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. Note that I'm _NOT_ talking about those modules that have to be compiled in such as for your filesystem. This is about the other ones. I generally like to load them at boot-up. One reason is that I have heard that for suspend or hibernate to work, some modules have to be unloaded. On the other hand, compiling them in results in faster boot times. So, what do gentoo-users think? Tony I have 23 modules (loaded), most related to the soundcard, and a few related to nvidia, a few for the webcam. It appears I could unload 4 modules but the rest are necessary, and cannot be compiled inside the kernel without breaking functionality of other drivers, or applications. -Kristian -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
oh, there is one thing where it is useful to have modules. That would be projects where the codebase will be updated more often than you update your kernels (I'm looking at you ALSA). In those circumstances it may be more valuable to have the flexibility to update code without having to reboot (or kexec). On 6/12/06, Mike Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, all mileage may vary. Personally, I prefer to not have things loaded into the kernel when I'm not using them. It's not really a performance or a memory saving thing, but more of an OCD thing. I'm sure that, in the grand scheme of things, the little time/power/whatever I save by keeping them out of the kernel is far outweighed by the amount of time it takes to type modprobe x when i remember I need to load the thing. Afterall, my time at the command prompt is significantly more valuable than a few extra cycles, or an extra 70-500K memory footprint. The thing is, it really depends on how clean you keep your kernel config. If you seriously go through the kernel config an make sure that you only select the things which are appropriate for your system, then you're fine. I've known people who just have almost everything built as a module, and let kernel autoloading take care of figuring out which one they need for their system (yes, terribly stupid and inelegant, but it does solve the problem when you don't know how else to do it). Also, compiling a whole tree of modules can be a simple way of figuring out exactly which set of code corresponds to your chipset, but that is not relevant to the current discussion. Basically, I'd say that if it doesn't matter how the thing is loaded into the kernel (I.E., no outside code relies on it being a module), and if it's going to be loaded more than some threshold percentage of time, just build it in. Unless you are facing some weird constraints, anything resembling modern hardware can handle the slightly larger kernel, and if you are facing those constraints, you probably already know what you're doing much better than I'll ever be able to say. As a side question for the list, when you load a module, you can pass module options to it (at least, last I checked, this could be done to specify things like the name of the interface on an internet driver, debugging level, etc...). When you build something into the kernel, is there an easy way to pass such options off to it? boot time options? anyone know? --Mike On 6/12/06, Steven Susbauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. Note that I'm _NOT_ talking about those modules that have to be compiled in such as for your filesystem. This is about the other ones. I generally like to load them at boot-up. One reason is that I have heard that for suspend or hibernate to work, some modules have to be unloaded. On the other hand, compiling them in results in faster boot times. So, what do gentoo-users think? Tony I have never used any modules that I didn't have to. At this point, I use none. They are all compiled into the kernel, because I don't have a point to unloading or loading. The only point for modules in any of my experience is if you're often changing hardware (possibly a laptop with a base station... or something?) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I usualy start with a kernel with almost everything compiled in (but only things I definitely need), only using modules when I have to (USB for suspend2 comes to my mind). Over time whenever I need something new (filesystem, hardware driver,...) I tend to compile it as a module to avoid a reboot. As I do not upgrade my kernel very often this happens more often than you might think (last upgrade was from 2.6.11 to 2.6.16, on my laptop from 2.6.10 to 2.6.16). I don't really care about the 300k more used memory (hardly worth a thought on systems with 1 GB RAM and more) or the 0.3 seconds faster boot process. Modules just come in handy when it comes to avoiding a reboot. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEjShO6q4f+IV6B/wRAqqVAJ4nJm00PUpjPWQKEXii+j3vN/8zowCfQImC +m69YW947xYOCsZM+sUyqTA= =FNqr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
On 6/12/06, Michael Weyershäuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I usualy start with a kernel with almost everything compiled in (but only things I definitely need), only using modules when I have to (USB for suspend2 comes to my mind). Over time whenever I need something new (filesystem, hardware driver,...) I tend to compile it as a module to avoid a reboot. As I do not upgrade my kernel very often this happens more often than you might think (last upgrade was from 2.6.11 to 2.6.16, on my laptop from 2.6.10 to 2.6.16). I don't really care about the 300k more used memory (hardly worth a thought on systems with 1 GB RAM and more) or the 0.3 seconds faster boot process. Modules just come in handy when it comes to avoiding a reboot. I agree. I use the basic modules for sound card, video, wireless and USB, just because it something hangs I can work it without a reboot. Besides, unloading modules is an excelent feature when you're using a laptop in presentations or trips where you just want to read that e-book or show that pdf, so you can unload all that you don't need (in my case almost everything) and save battery. -- Daniel da Veiga Computer Operator - RS - Brazil -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V- PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
On 6/11/06, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. I have heard a security argument made that it is safer to compile everything into the kernel, and disable support for modules entirely. The reason for this is that if someone can load malicious modules on your system they can basically circumvent any security systems you are using, including things like SELinux and grsec. -- Evan Klitzke -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Evan Klitzke wrote: I have heard a security argument made that it is safer to compile everything into the kernel, and disable support for modules entirely. I would say this is a must on server. This way you would close one potential security leak. Of course, it does not help if you leave a few others opened... :-) Jarry -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:16:56 -0700, Evan Klitzke wrote: I have heard a security argument made that it is safer to compile everything into the kernel, and disable support for modules entirely. The reason for this is that if someone can load malicious modules on your system they can basically circumvent any security systems you are using, including things like SELinux and grsec. This is only relevant is all your hardware can be supported by in-kernel modules. Add one item that needs a 3rd party module and you are forced to enable module loading. -- Neil Bothwick Bother, said Pooh, as the vice squad took his GIFS signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Evan Klitzke wrote: On 6/11/06, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. I have heard a security argument made that it is safer to compile everything into the kernel, and disable support for modules entirely. The reason for this is that if someone can load malicious modules on your system they can basically circumvent any security systems you are using, including things like SELinux and grsec. If an attacker can load malicious modules into your kernel I'd argue that your security model has already failed and failed spectacularly. Sounds like security as thought up by someone who has never had to managed a system unless someone has a plausible attack scenario. kashani -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Michael Weyershäuser wrote: I usualy start with a kernel with almost everything compiled in (but only things I definitely need), only using modules when I have to (USB for suspend2 comes to my mind). Over time whenever I need something new (filesystem, hardware driver,...) I tend to compile it as a module to avoid a reboot. As I do not upgrade my kernel very often this happens more often than you might think (last upgrade was from 2.6.11 to 2.6.16, on my laptop from 2.6.10 to 2.6.16). I don't really care about the 300k more used memory (hardly worth a thought on systems with 1 GB RAM and more) or the 0.3 seconds faster boot process. Modules just come in handy when it comes to avoiding a reboot. OK, this seems to confirm something I had suspected but never investigated: - that you can compile just a module without the need to recompile and install a revised kernel. This is possible? How? make modules_install or the whole thing: make make modules_install then just modprobe the new module? Tony -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Yea, of course you can do that, though you have to be careful if your kernel tree has changed to a different version than the one you're booted from (usually you can still just force the module to load, but a module from a different kernel tree may not want to play nicely with everything else). On 6/12/06, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Weyershäuser wrote: I usualy start with a kernel with almost everything compiled in (but only things I definitely need), only using modules when I have to (USB for suspend2 comes to my mind). Over time whenever I need something new (filesystem, hardware driver,...) I tend to compile it as a module to avoid a reboot. As I do not upgrade my kernel very often this happens more often than you might think (last upgrade was from 2.6.11 to 2.6.16, on my laptop from 2.6.10 to 2.6.16). I don't really care about the 300k more used memory (hardly worth a thought on systems with 1 GB RAM and more) or the 0.3 seconds faster boot process. Modules just come in handy when it comes to avoiding a reboot. OK, this seems to confirm something I had suspected but never investigated: - that you can compile just a module without the need to recompile and install a revised kernel. This is possible? How? make modules_install or the whole thing: make make modules_install then just modprobe the new module? Tony -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Anthony E. Caudel wrote: Teresa and Dale wrote: Care to guess how much I like modules: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # lsmod Module Size Used by nvidia 4551892 12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # I would have that one in there if I could. I never did like them. Why? I read somewhere once that it is harder to mess with the kernel than the modules, as in someone putting something evil in it. The kernel is one big file but the modules are not. I think they are in /usr/lib/modules ot something like that. I figure if someone messes with the kernel, they will mess it up or something and it will not boot at all. I just read it is not as secure is what I am saying I guess. Besides, I just hate have to edit the module file to get them to load, plus you ahve to wait when booting. My sorry $.02 worth. Dale :-) :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. Note that I'm _NOT_ talking about those modules that have to be compiled in such as for your filesystem. This is about the other ones. I generally like to load them at boot-up. One reason is that I have heard that for suspend or hibernate to work, some modules have to be unloaded. On the other hand, compiling them in results in faster boot times. So, what do gentoo-users think? Tony -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. Note that I'm _NOT_ talking about those modules that have to be compiled in such as for your filesystem. This is about the other ones. I generally like to load them at boot-up. One reason is that I have heard that for suspend or hibernate to work, some modules have to be unloaded. On the other hand, compiling them in results in faster boot times. So, what do gentoo-users think? Tony I'm certainly not the end-all-be-all in kernel knowledge. But, I tend to look at it based on the particular modules being loaded and the likeliness that I will actually use that module. If it seems like something is fundamental to the operation of the OS (filesystems, core drivers like USB, chipset, etc.) then I compile it in. If it's something that makes sense to unload and load (in my mind, this is something like network drivers, audio drivers, netfilter modules, etc.), then I'll compile it as a separate module. It's not a hard and fast rule, and there are always exceptions. For example, there are programs that expect to find the module, and if you compile it into the kernel that program won't work right, even though you have the (whatever) functionality built into the kernel. - -- gentux echo hfouvyyAhnbjm/dpn | perl -pe 's/(.)/chr(ord($1)-1)/ge' gentux's gpg fingerprint == 5495 0388 67FF 0B89 1239 D840 4CF0 39E2 18D3 4A9E -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEjP2bTPA54hjTSp4RAi44AKCx0cjGLdyoVGw1F8EZtC/STATGlQCgg4VL l7NW4j0HQugR70OADkBDCTU= =ExLX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
