Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:48:54 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Adam <bsdx@looksharp.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: making the snoop device loadable. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007102126560.24331-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200007100802.BAA08058@netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Peter Wemm wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > > > On 09-Jul-00 Adam wrote: > > > Ok, I give in to the argument. I would just like to make a wish. On Jan > > > 24 1999 peter took the NO_LKM option out of LINT. I assume the support > > > for it in other files was removed around that time also. Could someone > > > implement a NO_KLD option so you dont need to use securelevel > 0 so > > > people have an obvious option and dont have to know the kernel well enough > > > to hack syscalls.master? > > > > Patches accepted. :) Seriously, if you come up with a patchset > > I'll look at it and see about getting it in the tree. > > NO_LKM was different. The LKM subsystem was always an "add-on" system. No, it was essentially the same. The LKM subsystem was originally standard. dima@freebsd.org added the NO_LKM option in rev.1.48 of kern_lkm.c for security reasons, after the discussion that we're recycling reached opposite conclusions last time. NO_LKM just removed the initializer for the LKM subsystem. There were linkage issues that made it inconvenient to remove the entire subsystem. > NO_LKM got changed to 'options LKM' which meant you had to choose to > activate it. Once LKM became obsolete, it went away entirely. The change from NO_LKM to !LKM fixed the linkage issues so that LKM could go away completely. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007102126560.24331-100000>