[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kernel module loading vs securelevel
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 03:38:42AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > Heh, then why have we had it on i386 for years?
> > Because of the X server.
> You are just saying:
> "We introduced a significant security regression just for our own
> I see no proper reason to avoid INSECURE for MODULAR if it's okay for X.
...and I'm not convinced of this, primarily because (from a practical
point of view) X is unavoidable and unfixable, whereas modules are
This gets back to the underlying question of what purpose modules are
supposed to serve, and as I know everyone knows what I think and is
sick and tired of hearing about it, I'll pipe down.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |