Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:43:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Nowlin <mike@argos.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kerneld for FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.05.10006080334280.18504-100000@jason.argos.org> In-Reply-To: <200006070728.AAA97354@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I personally consider leaving the kernel module loadable intact after > boot to be a huge, huge security hole. Loadable modules... fine, but > once the machine goes multi-user I want to up the securelevel and > that disables any further kld operations. If one of the biggest > advantages of FreeBSD is its robustness and reliability, then one > generally does not want to go loading and unloading modules all the > time. > > A 'kerneld' like gizmo for FreeBSD would be a waste of time. The > scheme we have now -- having the utility programs load the modules > on the fly (ifconfig, vnconfig, etc...) works wonderfully. > Not to mention "how much memory do you really gain by unloading modules"? Considering the price of RAM these days (although not as low as it was, but I won't be spending $650 US for 16M any time soon again), the few K that unloading a bunch of modules saves won't EVER really be noticed by the 83Tb chunk that Nutscrape allocates. Excuse me, I must now think back to the dumbness achieved by people re-compiling Linux completely statically in hopes that it'll speed up their systems by not dynamically loading the libraries.... These were the same guys who wanted to unload modules to save kernel RAM... --mike 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?Pine.LNX.4.05.10006080334280.18504-100000>