From owner-freebsd-stable Thu May 13 18:11:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from netrinsics.com (unknown [202.99.58.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11901517F for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 18:11:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robinson@netrinsics.com) Received: (from robinson@localhost) by netrinsics.com (8.9.2/8.8.7) id JAA46457 for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 14 May 1999 09:10:34 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from robinson) Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:10:34 +0800 (CST) From: Michael Robinson Message-Id: <199905140110.JAA46457@netrinsics.com> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GENERIC 3.2-BETA kernel and printing Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "David O'Brien" writes: >> > 'bpf' active in `GENERIC' for DHCP installs (when we get to it), is >> > another example of where what we need for installs may not be best in >> > `GENERIC'. >> >> No, having bpf in the install kernel and not in GENERIC would be >> extra-unsmart if we go to DHCP. > >Wouldn't say "extra-unsmart" as you can try to give enough directions to >tell people they need to compile a new kernel immediately after the >install with BPF enabled. I do acknowledge the support headache this >could lead to. > >However, if BPF is enabled in GENERIC, I think we will take a lot of >heat... for the security implications. > >Admittedly.. a hard problem. I thought the new whizz-bang three-stage configurable kernel boot loader was supposed to make this kind of problem go away. -Michael Robinson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message