From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jun 13 10:09:01 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA05423 for current-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA05399 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (sendmail/PALMER-1) with ESMTP id OAA21413; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:52:24 +0100 (BST) To: Ollivier Robert cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Current Users' list) From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: #include opt_ipfw.h problem for lkm In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:50:49 +0200." <199606130950.LAA15818@keltia.freenix.fr> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:52:23 +0100 Message-ID: <21410.834673943@palmer.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Ollivier Robert wrote in message ID <199606130950.LAA15818@keltia.freenix.fr>: > sys/netinet/ip_fw.c includes "opt_ipfw.h" when compiling the kernel (which > is fine) but includes it also when compiling as lkm (which is bad). Phoey. You're right. On this subject, does anyone object to my REMOVAL of the option to have IPFW as an LKM? Having it as an LKM is (IMHO) stupid ... all a person breaking in needs to do to throw security WIDE open is modunload the module, and then the machine will fall back to being a simple router. Not my idea of a secure option. Will anyone seriously miss it if I remove the lkm? Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info