From owner-freebsd-current  Mon May 20 08:30:08 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA25035
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 08:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA25020
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 20 May 1996 08:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA26678; Tue, 21 May 1996 01:27:21 +1000
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 01:27:21 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199605201527.BAA26678@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, wollman@lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: unionfs
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>I think that this may be another service which doesn't want to be
>available as an LKM.  (IPFW is another, but for rather different
>reasons.)  When the new code is integrated, mount_union will not be
>able to modload the unionfs module unless it is run by root, which
>rather defeats the purpose of allowing ordinary users to mount
>unionfs:es in the first place.

It should be possible for anyone to ask a trusted server to load
trusted LKMs.  However, LKMs can't be loaded if securelevel > 0,
so it is best not to depend on loading them on demand.

Bruce