Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:23:27 +0100 (MET) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: lile@stdio.com (Larry Lile) Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, julian@whistle.com, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current status of the olicom fracas. Message-ID: <199902211423.PAA14194@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902210846280.8995-100000@heathers.stdio.com> from "Larry Lile" at Feb 21, 99 10:29:41 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I personally advocate the position that any instruction executed > > on the CPU must be available in source form, and therefore this i second this position. The idea being that you might not trust a module and want to have a chance that it does not do bad things. ... > Now how do we save the oltr driver and token-ring support for FreeBSD? Perhaps this would be a good case for a "kernel patch" type of port, wouldn't it ? I know by experience that kernel patches are problematic because they are much harder to keep consistent with the system and/or other patches, but at least, by going this way, one really has to know what s/he does before using an external object module. The other possibility would be to modify the config structure so that obkect-only modules can be clearly identified and either config or a kernel build loudly remarks the use of such a module. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902211423.PAA14194>