![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > 1. security, if you don't need any modules you can disable modules > > > entirly and then it's impossible to add a module without patching > > > the kernel first (the module load system calls aren't there) > > Urban legend. > If this is the case then why do I get systemcall undefined error messages > when I make a mistake and attempt to load a module on a kernel without > modules enabled? AFAIU the security improvement of no-modules are way overrated. [...] > > > 3. simplicity in building kernels for other machines. with a monolithic > > > kernel you have one file to move (and a bootloader to run) with modules > > > you have to move quite a few more files. > > tar or nfs mount; make modules_install. > not on my firewalls thank you. You keep compilers and stuff on your firewalls then?! I get them over via ssh or by floppy/CD. Same idea. -- Horst von Brand http://counter.li.org # 22616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:22 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||