Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using kernel moduls vs. staticly
linking stuff in the kernel? I would like to eliminate everything from my
kernel config that can be loaded as a module, then load them at boot using
loader.conf. Is there any reason I would not want to do that? It seems to
Damien Tougas wrote:
Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using kernel moduls vs. staticly
linking stuff in the kernel? I would like to eliminate everything from my
kernel config that can be loaded as a module, then load them at boot using
loader.conf. Is there any reason I would not want to
On Friday 07 March 2003 11:55 am, Damien Tougas wrote:
Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using kernel moduls vs. staticly
linking stuff in the kernel? I would like to eliminate everything from my
kernel config that can be loaded as a module, then load them at boot using
loader.conf.
So optimal security would be have every
needed component compiled in, and turn off the ability to load any modules.
I have no idea if this can be done or how in FreeBSD.
This is what securelevel(8) is about:
[...]
1 Secure mode - the system immutable and system append-only flags may
On 2003-03-07 15:06, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damien Tougas wrote:
Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using kernel moduls
vs. staticly linking stuff in the kernel? I would like to eliminate
everything from my kernel config that can be loaded as a module,
then load them at boot using
Bill Moran writes:
First would be historical. BSD is historically a monolithic kernel. The
more
you rely on modules, the more the kernel acts like a microkernel. I suspect
The kernel will still not be a microkernel.. it doesn't really matter
at what time the stuff is linked; a microkernel
On Friday 07 March 2003 06:18 pm, Simon Barner wrote:
So optimal security would be have every
needed component compiled in, and turn off the ability to load any
modules. I have no idea if this can be done or how in FreeBSD.
This is what securelevel(8) is about:
ahh yes, that seems pretty
Matthias Buelow wrote:
Bill Moran writes:
First would be historical. BSD is historically a monolithic kernel. The
more
you rely on modules, the more the kernel acts like a microkernel. I suspect
The kernel will still not be a microkernel.. it doesn't really matter
at what time the stuff is
http://packetstorm.decepticons.org/papers/unix/bsdkern.htm
Btw, the article about (nearly) Complete Linux Loadable Kernel Modules, which
is often being referred to by the BSD Kernel article can be found at
http://blacksun.box.sk/lkm.html.
(the URL given in the BSD article is no longer valid).
