Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenBSD Drops Support For Loadable Kernel Modules

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by CTTY View Post
    And reboot the 200MB Kernel every time you test your module? ^^
    ?200MB?

    Code:
    $ uname -vr
    5.5 GENERIC.MP#315
    $ du -hs /bsd.sp                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
    11.2M	/bsd.sp
    $ vmstat -m | tail -1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    In use 5211K, total allocated 5996K; utilization 86.9%

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by CTTY View Post
      And reboot the 200MB Kernel every time you test your module? ^^
      If you already compile kernel, and are able to write your own module, than you should be capable of letting most of the stuff you don't need out of the kernel. So it won't be a 200 MB kernel. IIRC when I was using Slackware and Gentoo I have never used modules, and my kernels were ~40 MB in size, or less (B/c I always tried to compile in only stuff I had really needed.).
      Last edited by reCAPTCHA; 28 October 2014, 08:53 PM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Luke View Post
        OK, if I used BSD instead of Linux, and used a kernel with modules for all possible printers, drives, wifi cards, and anything else it might ever encounter compiled in, the result would be having to load about 200MB at boot time. My /lib/modules for any one kernel is about 192MB. Now, imagine booting this on a netbook, with only 1GB of RAM on the whole machine! It would take longer to load a kernel that size at boot, longer yet on a slow Atom netbbook, the kind that benefits the most from a fast boot,
        You saying this made me curious, so I logged on to one of my OpenBSD boxes that's serving as a mailserver.


        Code:
        $ uname -srm
        OpenBSD 5.5 amd64
        $ ls -lh /bsd
        -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  bin  11.1M Oct 20 03:43 /bsd*
        $
        That's with the standard GENERIC kernel. I haven't disabled any options in it.

        Comment


        • #14
          Honestly I didn't even think they supported loadable kernel modules in the first place. I was aware that all the standard drivers were part of the kernel (and it worked well and booted quick). I can only imagine that the loadable kernel modules support was rarely used so that is probably why they are getting rid of it.

          You can still enable or disable devices from the OpenBSD boot loader's UKC (User Kernel Config) (http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#BootConfig).

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by CTTY View Post
            And reboot the 200MB Kernel every time you test your module? ^^
            The system boots easily with 32 Mb of ram. The kernel don't takes more than 10-20 Mb I think ! You can try in a virtual machine

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by carsonc View Post

              Code:
              $ uname -srm
              OpenBSD 5.5 amd64
              $ ls -lh /bsd
              -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  bin  11.1M Oct 20 03:43 /bsd*
              $
              Now that OpenBSD is removing the dynamic loading from the kernel, it should be even smaller haha. Might be pushing only 10M

              Comment


              • #17
                In 1969 Unix did not have Loadable Kernel Modules, therefore they are contrary to the Unix Philosophy, therefore they are a Bad Thing(TM).

                The next release of OpenBSD should drop support for any hardware other than the PDP11.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Jacob you can go fuck yourself, because that is simply not the case. Linux is, in all seriousness a completely different beast architecture wise from BSD and System V UNIX, just as OS X is ( OS X is Mach with a forked BSD userland with some GNU tools ) In this case, the LKM feature is completely useless as the kernel is pretty damn small, I don't know a single module for the OpenBSD kernel. Your statement just proves your ignorance of the design concept of BSD and your poor fallacy filled attempt at humour falls flat. Why do you think North Korea and China chose the Linux kernel over BSD for their operating systems they're trying to push? Because Communism is roughly equatable with the philosophy of the GPL.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by TeamBlackFox View Post
                    Jacob you can go fuck yourself, because that is simply not the case. Linux is, in all seriousness a completely different beast architecture wise from BSD and System V UNIX, just as OS X is ( OS X is Mach with a forked BSD userland with some GNU tools ) In this case, the LKM feature is completely useless as the kernel is pretty damn small, I don't know a single module for the OpenBSD kernel. Your statement just proves your ignorance of the design concept of BSD and your poor fallacy filled attempt at humour falls flat. Why do you think North Korea and China chose the Linux kernel over BSD for their operating systems they're trying to push? Because Communism is roughly equatable with the philosophy of the GPL.
                    There, take it easy mate. You will have to excuse me but I just don't see how having monolithic kernel where all drivers and filesystems must be in RAM even when not used is supposed to bring any advantage whatsoever. Yeah yeah, the OpenBSD kernel is small etc. but that is just a variant of "640k ought be enough for anybody". Unless OpenBSD devs expressly plan to never expand hardware support, implement new filesystems or add more features, then without LKMs you can say hello to massive bloat.

                    Funny, but I would have thought that China and NK are using Linux for pretty much the same reasons that the NSA, NASA, Google, Facebook, IBM etc.... are using it: because it is a great, versatile OS. You obviously talked to them and know that no, it's just because the GPL is "communist". How precisely is the GPL communist? Last time I checked, its purpose was to make centralised top-down control impossible so as to level the playing field and prevent monopolistic behaviour. Sounds really like something straight from Marx & Engels.... not. But never let the facts stand in the way of a good meme. "GPL is communist" and "anti-business" because Microsoft and BSD fanboys say so, never mind that it has been spectacularly successful in the business world. That is, unless you also assume that Fortune 500 companies, virtually the entire Sillicon Valley except Apple and the NYSE itself are all part of a North-Korean communist plot to destroy BSD.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      the GPL is not communist.

                      That still is burped out by people who do not understand that the BSD licence is THE reason why BSD failed against linux. BSD style licences promote and reward egotistical behaviour. GPL promotes and reward cooperation.

                      Since cooperation the only way to go forward, BSDs are doomed to failure.

                      Back on topic.

                      From a security point of view, OpenBSD's decicion is completely and utterly brain dead.

                      More drivers and optional, seldom used features in the kernel means more possible attack vectors in the kernel.

                      If you learn that an exploit exists in some network feature/driver you never use nor will ever use - and luckily you compiled that feature/driver into a module, off it goes! Into the abyss with it. Hole closed.

                      If that same feature is in the kernel. You got a problem.

                      Oh - and all those people wanking about OpenBSD's stellar security. It is not so stellar if you look behind the grandeur and PR-speak.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X