On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:26:13AM +1000, matthew green wrote:

> 
>    I've wondered this for some time now.. kern.securelevel defaults to 0
>    on i386, but 1 on sparc. why is this so?
> 
> cuz of xf86 -- sparc isn't useless about X without it.

I figured that was the case. :)

>    with ipf built as an LKM,
>    
>    # ipf -E
>    SIOCFRENB: Invalid argument
>    
>    ipf -E is called from /etc/rc.d/ipfilter.
>    
>    Obviously once the module is loaded, it's activated, but this could
>    cause confusion for people expecting ipf -D to disable it.
> 
> hm?  ipf -D doesn't appear to require securelevel set or unset?  i
> can see it might not work very nicely at securelevel=2, but that's
> something one has to ask or...

Hmm, yes you're right - it behaves the same with securelevel = 0. I'm
not sure what the cause of this might be.

This is 1.5.2/sparc. It behaves correctly on /i386.

Darren?

g.