tech-kern archive

[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
 > convenience."


 > 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

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index