Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri Mar 21, 2003 at 07:47:42PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:25:01AM -0500, The Anarcat wrote: > > On Fri Mar 21, 2003 at 07:16:58PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, it's all right to compile modules w/o the kernel, but that's > > > not exactly what I was asking about. My question was whether "option > > > FOO" lines from a kernel configuration file could influence modules. > > > > I'm pretty sure they do. A great example is IPFIREWALL_* options: if > > they don't influence the module, I think we have a problem. ;) > > My testing a yesterday's CURRENT has shown we did have the problem. > Everobody is invited to set "options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT" > and to load the resulting ipfw.ko on a remote machine without human > access ;-))) [small print: it's a joke, don't actually do that.] Woops. -- Nothing incites to money-crimes like great poverty or great wealth. - Mark Twain pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:25:01AM -0500, The Anarcat wrote: > On Fri Mar 21, 2003 at 07:16:58PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > > Yeah, it's all right to compile modules w/o the kernel, but that's > > not exactly what I was asking about. My question was whether "option > > FOO" lines from a kernel configuration file could influence modules. > > I'm pretty sure they do. A great example is IPFIREWALL_* options: if > they don't influence the module, I think we have a problem. ;) My testing a yesterday's CURRENT has shown we did have the problem. Everobody is invited to set "options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT" and to load the resulting ipfw.ko on a remote machine without human access ;-))) [small print: it's a joke, don't actually do that.] -- Yar To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, The Anarcat wrote: TA>On Fri Mar 21, 2003 at 07:16:58PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: TA>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:39:07PM +0200, Nikolay Y. Orlyuk wrote: TA>> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: TA>> > > Hi there, TA>> > > TA>> > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the TA>> > > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief TA>> > > answer from someone who has the information. TA>> > > TA>> > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the TA>> > > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in TA>> > > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is TA>> > > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's TA>> > > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying TA>> > > makefiles in /sys/modules? TA>> > I think this isn't so. I have been already tried to compile some modules TA>> > without compiling kernel and this trye has successful result, but without TA>> > change options. TA>> > I think modules must be build with same or less imports and same or more export to be correct TA>> > for loading. TA>> TA>> Yeah, it's all right to compile modules w/o the kernel, but that's TA>> not exactly what I was asking about. My question was whether "option TA>> FOO" lines from a kernel configuration file could influence modules. TA> TA>I'm pretty sure they do. A great example is IPFIREWALL_* options: if TA>they don't influence the module, I think we have a problem. ;) How should they? The Makefiles for modules usually create the option files that normally are create by config options themself and set the options to 1. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:35:22PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the > > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief > > answer from someone who has the information. > > > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the > > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in > > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is > > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's > > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying > > makefiles in /sys/modules? > > > There is. It's called ``makeoptions''. It's passed to both > kernel and modules builds. I beg your pardon, but "makeoptions" is just next to editing makefiles in /sys/modules. My dream was that specifying, e.g., "options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE" would result in building ipfw.ko inherently chatty :-) BTW, Ruslan, let me ask you another question, as you've been recently working at kern.mk files. Is it on purpose that the target "kernel-cleandir" doesn't invoke "kernel-cleandepend"? I've been sure that by common practice "cleandir" should remove dependency files... -- Yar To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri Mar 21, 2003 at 07:16:58PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:39:07PM +0200, Nikolay Y. Orlyuk wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the > > > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief > > > answer from someone who has the information. > > > > > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the > > > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in > > > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is > > > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's > > > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying > > > makefiles in /sys/modules? > > I think this isn't so. I have been already tried to compile some modules > > without compiling kernel and this trye has successful result, but without > > change options. > > I think modules must be build with same or less imports and same or more export to > > be correct > > for loading. > > Yeah, it's all right to compile modules w/o the kernel, but that's > not exactly what I was asking about. My question was whether "option > FOO" lines from a kernel configuration file could influence modules. I'm pretty sure they do. A great example is IPFIREWALL_* options: if they don't influence the module, I think we have a problem. ;) A. -- Advertisers, not governments, are the primary censors of media content in the United States today. - C. Edwin Baker http://www.ad-mad.co.uk/quotes/freespeech.htm pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:39:07PM +0200, Nikolay Y. Orlyuk wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the > > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief > > answer from someone who has the information. > > > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the > > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in > > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is > > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's > > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying > > makefiles in /sys/modules? > I think this isn't so. I have been already tried to compile some modules > without compiling kernel and this trye has successful result, but without > change options. > I think modules must be build with same or less imports and same or more export to > be correct > for loading. Yeah, it's all right to compile modules w/o the kernel, but that's not exactly what I was asking about. My question was whether "option FOO" lines from a kernel configuration file could influence modules. -- Yar To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Hi there, > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief > answer from someone who has the information. > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying > makefiles in /sys/modules? I think this isn't so. I have been already tried to compile some modules without compiling kernel and this trye has successful result, but without change options. I think modules must be build with same or less imports and same or more export to be correct for loading. > -- With best wishes Nikolay mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Build options for kernel modules
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Hi there, > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief > answer from someone who has the information. > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying > makefiles in /sys/modules? > There is. It's called ``makeoptions''. It's passed to both kernel and modules builds. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Build options for kernel modules
Hi there, Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief answer from someone who has the information. As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying makefiles in /sys/modules? -- Yar To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
