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 m
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 d
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
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
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 lin
> > 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 vali
