Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:52:15PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote: > [stuff] If you insist on going on delete/disable sprees without discussing beforehand, can you at least, when doing these, go through and make sure the things you've removed don't leave behind dangling hooks in the main kernel?

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Aug 2, 5:02pm, Martin Husemann wrote: } On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:56:50AM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote: } > Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use } > compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it } > out of the GENERIC kernel

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

Taylor R Campbell wrote: > This is a compromise between preserving the functionality and reducing > attack surface for what I hypothesize are a majority of users who do > not use it. Under this proposal, the code will remain, and still be > built, and still

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: I think we can go into a different direction. Instead of disabling the code - we could turn all compat_ into dynamically loadable modules. I would profit from it for functional out-of-the-box compat for older NetBSD releases (a.out executables).

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:52:15PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote: > I disagree. The cost of doing a modload is low enough compared to the > configuration needed to use compat_linux. Just like the command you quoted. If I wanted OpenBSD, I know were to get it. There is a balance between pissing off

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:17:05PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > I think we can go into a different direction. Instead of disabling the > code - we could turn all compat_ into dynamically loadable modules. I > would profit from it for functional out-of-the-box compat for older > NetBSD releases

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

Le 02/08/2017 à 20:02, Taylor R Campbell a écrit : Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:11:16 + From: m...@netbsd.org I can 'cd pkgsrc/www/opera; make install; opera' and get a closed source browser that works as is, without even realizing it relies on COMPAT_LINUX to work. % cd www/opera && bmake

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

p...@whooppee.com (Paul Goyette) writes: >If you're using /etc/modules.conf, why not just modunload the modules >you want to remove? (Modules "pushed" from /boot.conf cannot be >unloaded, as far as I understand.) It's the loading part that is prohibited :) -- --

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:02:57PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > % cd www/opera && bmake package > ERROR: This package has set PKG_FAIL_REASON: > ERROR: opera-12.16 has an unacceptable license condition: > ERROR: opera-1200-license > ERROR: You can mark the license ``opera-1200-license''

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On 02.08.2017 20:02, Taylor R Campbell wrote: >> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:11:16 + >> From: m...@netbsd.org >> >> I can 'cd pkgsrc/www/opera; make install; opera' and get a closed source >> browser that works as is, without even realizing it relies on >> COMPAT_LINUX to work. > > % cd

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

Le 02/08/2017 à 18:11, m...@netbsd.org a écrit : On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 01:04:27PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote: Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional system configuration steps of setting up /emul? Is it an onerous burden to have to modload or add a line in

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:11:16 + > From: m...@netbsd.org > > I can 'cd pkgsrc/www/opera; make install; opera' and get a closed source > browser that works as is, without even realizing it relies on > COMPAT_LINUX to work. % cd www/opera && bmake package ERROR: This package has set

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

> Unless some miracle happens, NetBSD will remain an esoteric operating > system, and we won't have many closed source programs if any. Wearing my iconoclast hat... ...would that be a bad thing? Those who want Linux do know where to find it, after all. /~\ The ASCII

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

Taylor R Campbell wrote: >(The code will also continue to be compile-tested as non-module via >the ALL kernels.) Maybe we need an ALL kernel for sparc64.

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:56:50 -0700 > From: Brian Buhrow > > Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use > compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it > out of the GENERIC kernel configuration, we lose the regular

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 01:04:27PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional system > configuration steps of setting up /emul? Is it an onerous burden to > have to modload or add a line in /etc/modules.conf in those steps? Yes, COMPAT_LINUX

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:56:50AM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote: > Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use > compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it > out of the GENERIC kernel configuration, we lose the regular testing, such > as it

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it out of the GENERIC kernel configuration, we lose the regular testing, such as it is, with the daily builds. Sure, the module gets built, but it could

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

> Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional system > configuration steps of setting up /emul? Is it an onerous burden to > have to modload or add a line in /etc/modules.conf in those steps? Not me. Not for me (I build my custom kernels anyway).

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 18:19:27 +1000 > from: matthew green > > > compat_linux > > compat_linux32 > > all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't > include them in your list of targets. Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 18:19:27 +1000 > from: matthew green > > > compat_linux > > compat_linux32 > > compat_netbsd32 > > all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't > include them in your list of targets. saying "modload is OK" is > not how we

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

>> exec_elf32 >> exec_elf64 >> exec_script > how else do you expect to be able to run elf binaries or any sort of > scripts? ie, these should never be targets for removal. Even elf64 on a 32-bit system, or elf32 on a 64-bit system? (Uhere "system" refers to userland; sparc32 userland under

Re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

Le 02/08/2017 à 10:19, matthew green a écrit : compat_linux compat_linux32 compat_netbsd32 all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't include them in your list of targets. saying "modload is OK" is not how we treat the GENERIC kernel -- if it's OK, then it's OK for

re: Proposal: Disable autoload of compat_xyz modules

> compat_linux > compat_linux32 > compat_netbsd32 all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't include them in your list of targets. saying "modload is OK" is not how we treat the GENERIC kernel -- if it's OK, then it's OK for GENERIC is how we treat that. the latter is