Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:56:21 -0500 From: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org> Cc: "Nikolay Y. Orlyuk" <nikolay@asu.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Build options for kernel modules Message-ID: <20030321165621.GD1174@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <20030321164741.GA57884@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20030321153217.GA53518@comp.chem.msu.su> <20030321153907.GQ76182@asu.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> <20030321161658.GA56375@comp.chem.msu.su> <20030321162501.GC1174@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> <20030321164741.GA57884@comp.chem.msu.su>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
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
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+e0Q1ttcWHAnWiGcRAqBTAJ47hg8p5fslG+ogFOJIIjT0jWnPDQCgjvVD
mtlWKU2rzvoJ/QT1P6DvE1k=
=IuaT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030321165621.GD1174>