On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, iSteve wrote:
> Okay, so, I have so far gathered:
>
> - the whole module interface change between 2.4 and 2.6 was because
> some security concerns, most of the stuff (loading module etc.) moved
> towards kernel
I thought it was due to raciness or locking concerns, but
I'm not sure about that.
> - query_module is gone, there is no syscall similar in function but
> with different name
Right.
> - losing of query_module also prevents binary-only modules
> (guesswork@work)
Nope, they are not prevented. However, there is a Tainted flag
that is set when one is loaded (and that flag is never cleared).
> - /proc/modules and /sys/module interface doesn't by far supply what
> query_module could do
Can you state succinctly exactly what you are trying to do?
> My questions are:
> a) Are my observations correct? Where did I go wrong?
> b) Is there any planned replacement of query_module, or extendind sysfs
> or procfs module interface?
Haven't heard of one.
> c) Wouldn't revamping query_module also allow binary-only modules,
they are still possible.
> therefore easier decisions for vendors, whether to support Linux?
>
> Thanks in advance and sorry for these probably quite silly questions.
>
> - iSteve
--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
|
|