[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200604210747.GA29923@pi3.com.pl>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:07:47 +0200
From: Adam Zabrocki <pi3@....com.pl>
To: lkrg-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Support for 5.7 linux kernel?
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 11:01:24PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
> On 04/06/2020 21:44, Solar Designer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:09:27PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2020 12:37, Solar Designer wrote:
> >>> Maybe we need to support LKRG build without CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD, by
> >>> conditionally excluding the corresponding functionality from LKRG as
> >>> well. Adam, what do you think?
> >>
> >> What functionality would be affected if CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD was set to off?
> >
> > I guess module unloading would be unsupported, including of LKRG.
> >
> > config MODULE_UNLOAD
> > bool "Module unloading"
> > help
> > Without this option you will not be able to unload any
> > modules (note that some modules may not be unloadable
> > anyway), which makes your kernel smaller, faster
> > and simpler. If unsure, say Y.
> >
> > It's weird to have the entire kernel configured with module support
> > enabled yet module unloading disabled, though - except maybe for some
> > embedded applications.
> >
> > Alexander
> >
>
> Actually, according to the kernel config info, it's pretty reasonable, since it
> "makes your kernel ... faster and simpler". I build my kernels without the
> option to unload modules because I compile every needed module into the kernel
> itself, and I don't really think of unloading them later. :) I would even set
> CONFIG_MODULES to off, but many apps rely on some files, which that option
> provides, and the apps don't work well without them. So I only uncheck
> MODULE_UNLOAD. Now I have only one module -- lkrg, so the module loading feature
> is must-have, but still I don't really see any reason why it chould be unloaded.
> The configuration of the module doesn't really change much from one boot to the
> other. So if only the module unloading feature would be unsupported, I think no
> harm is dome, and this could be optional in order to support the
> faster/simpler kernels. :)
>
Hm... you can use LKRG's feature 'block_module' to lock down that interface if
you wish.
In theory we might work without MODULE_UNLOAD. However, it is very unusual
config and such support will take some research. I can try to keep this in mind
and if I have some more free time I can try to take a look at it.
Thanks,
Adam
--
pi3 (pi3ki31ny) - pi3 (at) itsec pl
http://pi3.com.pl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
