> I can see a couple reasons for building a kernel without useing modules.
>
> 1. security, if you don't need any modules you can disable modules entirly
> and then it's impossible to add a module without patching the kernel first
> (the module load system calls aren't there)
Oh, please... Give me permissions sufficient to make these syscalls
and in a couple of minutes your kernel will be replaced with ELIZA.
As a bonus - ELIZA running under TOPS-10 on PDP-10 emulator. And talking
to PARRY.
Anyway, it's trivial to disable said system calls just before doing
execve("/sbin/init",...). It won't buy you any security, but if you
insist...
> 2. speed, there was a discussion a few weeks ago pointing out that there
> is some overhead for useing modules (far calls need to be used just in
> case becouse the system can't know where the module will be located IIRC)
_That_ has to be addressed - regardless of anything else, if that suckitude
can be fixed it should be.
> 3. simplicity in building kernels for other machines. with a monolithic
> kernel you have one file to move (and a bootloader to run) with modules
> you have to move quite a few more files.
FVO"quite a few" equal to 2. Kernel and initramfs.cpio.gz
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/