Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:47:42 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org> To: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> Cc: "Nikolay Y. Orlyuk" <nikolay@asu.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Build options for kernel modules Message-ID: <20030321164741.GA57884@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20030321162501.GC1174@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.] -- Yar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030321164741.GA57884>