Subject: Re: LKM diff for review
To: Jonathan Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>
Date: 10/25/2004 20:39:49
Jonathan Stone wrote:
> I sometimes think about replacing LKM altogether: doing away with the
> userspace linker step, implmementing a minimal ELF linker/loader in
> the kernel, and hooking in modules via linker-set support, rather than
> the cumbersome ``module type'' described in lkm(4).
Note you don't need to use 'module type' at all - every LKM could
be implemented as 'misc' module. It's just one of possible ways
to share necessary hook-in code.
> Getting rid of the userspace linker is a big, big plus for secure
> systems (where you don't *want* an executable userspace linker, for
> good and sufficient reasons).
Yeah, in-kernel linker and thus ability to checksum 'safe'
LKMs would be great.
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.NetBSD.cz/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the Buddhist -=-
-=- masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow. Do not let this distract you.'' -=-