Re: Core statement on directory naming for kernel modules

[jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)]

On Dec 17,  1:58pm, Matthew Mondor wrote:
} On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:57:52 +0000 (UTC)
} Geoff Wing <mason%primenet.com.au@localhost> wrote:
} > John Nemeth <jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost> typed:
} > : ...... Being able to properly unload a built-in module would be a nice
} > : feature.
} > 
} > This sounds a bit like a possible security problem, though 
presumably/hopefully
} > limited by the current security level and AAA.
} 
} Do you mean in the case an external module could then be loaded instead
} of a built-in one?  Probably that someone who wants to prevent the
} kernel from loading external modules would use a kernel without
} MODULAR, or change the runlevel.

     True enough.

} This reminds me though: why/how does sysctl/kern.module.autoload
} default to 1 for non-MODULAR kernels (at least on netbsd-6)?  Or an
} alternative question: are these sysctl knobs useful at all with
} non-MODULAR kernels, or are they then artifacts?

     Good question.  Non-MODULAR kernels still have parts of the MODULAR
subsystem in order to initialise built-in modules.  However, the linking
code isn't there, so it would be impossible to load a module.  I'll make
a note to trim some of the excess stuff in non-MODULAR kernels.

}-- End of excerpt from Matthew Mondor