Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD Drops Support For Loadable Kernel Modules
jones_supa writes: The OpenBSD developers have decided to remove support for loadable kernel modules from the BSD distribution's next release. Several commits earlier this month stripped out the loadable kernel modules support. Phoronix's Michael Larabel has not yet found an official reason for the decision to drop support. He wagers that it is due to security or code quality/openness ideals.
As far as I'm concerned, the OpenBSD developers are as close to infallable as software developers could ever hope to get.
If they've decided to do this, then it's just the correct thing to be doing.
Community is beleaguered.
It's probably because OpenBSD's "LKMs" are so ancient, limited, and inflexible that nobody bothers to use them. I imagine if there were demand they would have adopted a more modern loadable module system, more akin to what's found in FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, etc.
This isn't news. It's more Phoronix spam.
"...Michael Larabel has not yet found an official reason for the decision to drop support. He wagers that it is due to security or code quality/openness ideals."
I know Phoronix is infamous, but, wow...
The OpenBSD mailing lists are right there. You're already reading them! Many developers frequent them daily. All you need to do is post a question! Hell, send an email to Ted himself if you're that shy. Why bother writing this article without doing the most basic of research?
I hope OpenBSD becomes much more popular. I remember nearly 15 years ago when BSD was being touted for its performance and media capabilities. Now I want more alternative, free, and open-source OSes that tout security and privacy. Privacy while using technology has become practically extinct, well, at least so it seems to me.
"amazingly customizable kernel with"
Clearly you've never used OpenBSD before. Kernel hacking is one thing they explicitly frown upon. Too easy to break important things and compromise security.
The name braindamaged, the link to goatse on the front page, 1 branch, 1 fork and 9 followers. How does this even compute as real?
New low?
Reason: he trolls more than he posts.
kthxbye
I'm compiling one right now!
Wait, it just finished. Shit, someone give me something else to compile!
And OpenBSD's init system (rc) is about as non-modular as it gets.
I use ports all the time, and I've never compiled my own kernel. From what I recall, everything available in the OpenBSD kernel is always enabled by default. The only reason to compile a new kernel is to remove something from the default kernel.
Removing the LKM means someone can't maliciously load a module that screws everything up. The malicious entity would have to replace your kernel and then force a reboot.
Now if they could also drop support for shared libraries I might consider upgrading my warezed copy of NetBSD 0.8.
kernel modules offer a level of flexibility when certain things are needed. this just makes FreeBSD more attractive.
This is it. Old implementation, low quality, and NOTHING USES IT. Bye bye!
Since it's a script, you can do what you want with it. run-parts style, if you like. It's a script, bring your own fun. Quite the opposite of systemd, if you will.
Why UNIX?
The OpenBSD developers are so awesome that they've found a magical way to make modules unnecessary: Magical code compression with zero runtime overhead. As a result of this new approach, every possible kernel module (including ones that haven't been written yet) is stored in less space than an otherwise completely stripped kernel from the prior revision.
Once you know why loadable kernel modules have been introduced.
But this requires you to turn your brain on first.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
They also removed Sendmail and BIND. Where's the outcry there?
https://bitbucket.org/braindam...
These are some of the worst and most uninformative commit messages I've ever seen...
1) Why are there so many commits to achieve the same thing?
2) Any commit message that is only a single line other than "fix typo" is a bad commit message
Seriously, even some of the worst/most incompetent Android kangers have written better commit messages than the shitpile of LKM removals I'm seeing there.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
They have been moving towards that direction for some time now. I am not saying that they are wrong but it will make building and testing OpenBSD a bit tougher and will raise the bar for new comers a bit. Recompiling your kernel every time can get somewhat tiring.
It could also be that they do not have enough resources to allocate for this support or to develop a "fix" for their security concern surrounding hot loading mods.
All and all, good to know, no big deal.
Real man don't load modules, they hack the kernel itself. The compressed binary. Using dd with the proper offset.
Pussies like you can use slack, porteus or the runit based voidlinux, or other "fuck you systemd" distro.
As an avid OpenBSD user and fan, this puzzle me because it would seem like a giant step backwards. Yes, loadable kernel modules do weaken the security some but it makes adding hardware drivers difficult. I really like OpenBSD as the OS does so many things very well but the team members are far from fallible. The community isn't as supportive and tends to be very exclusive, responding with RTFM sometimes a little too often. I can understand RTFM, but I cannot understand being told to read when I've read it already and I'm still unclear.
Do slashdot moderators click on any of the links for stories before sticking them on the slashdot front page? I'm thinking not in this case.
I shutter to think of how this would impact the development/debug cycle of an otherwise simple device driver.
OpenBSD market share drops as it no longer supports third party hardware. Former OpenBSD users migrate FreeBSD and DragonflyBSD where they can load the drivers for their raid cards and other server hardware that is not yet in the BSD mainline kernel.
This decision is almost as dumb as the unquestioned adoption of SystemD in linux..
WTF /. !!! The url says bsd.slashdot.org, but the theme isn't red anymore. Just another casualty to OMG beta! I presume.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not know the difference between OpenBSD and FreeBSD?
Ah - to load a malicious kernel module they would need root.
If they have root there are plenty of other things they could do which would be far simpler.
Yes, the Linux kernel will now have to be statically compiled with support for every piece of hardware out there, you are completely correct. Yes, it's completely idiotic and unfortunately not a joke :(
Wait, i don't get it. Mac is based on FreeBSD. What does it matter which of the BSDs is run on the world's greatest hardware that was exclusively designed for BSD.
jealous much?
OpenBSD's niche has always been those looking for near absolute stability and security. Features just about always take a backseat. The limitations it puts on hardware support are regrettable, but given their focus on stability and security, it doesn't seem as crazy. And that it's being done in one distribution, with the aim of specifically better achieving said distro's specific goals makes it a far cry from the madness that is systemd's march to pervade anything that someone can be duped or coerced into installing it on with the aim of, well, fostering hegemony.
This is more just like if only Redhat were rolling out systemd...a questionable decision, but not entirely without reasoning behind it, and all in service to that distro's particular personality, while systemd is more like the remilitarization of the Rhineland.
OS X is not "based" on FreeBSD. At best, some parts of OS X are at best close relatives of FreeBSD, but the similarity stops there.
you are absolutely discouraged from compiling your own custom OpenBSD kernel. The docs say this, and you will be laughed off the mailing list if you show up with a custom kernel and try to get help.
I didn't say it wasn't good I said it wasn't modular.
yup.
OS X Is not based on BSD. They have common ancestors ( OSX through NEXTSTEP on UNIX TSS from which 386BSD and later modern BSDs sprang), much like humans and chimps have.
Plus, jealous of what? I was just stating that *BSD users use Macs, not their own operating system. BSDs are just experimental, hobbyist distros (yes distros, that's what D stands for in BSD) that are becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern computing. Yeah, yeah, Netflix blah blah blah.
The OS X kernel code is taken from FreeBSD and Mach, It is a hybrid of both kernels. So part of OS X does come from FreeBSD.
That is generally the case with FreeBSD, which is why basic shit like suspend/resume and the ability to use any fucking Intel graphics card since mid-2007 still doesn't function properly (example: try switching to the console from X and back...whoops kernel panic).
OpenBSD devs OTOH use Thinkpads almost exclusively. Try running OBSD on any recent Thinkpad and it will work flawlessly, better than the stock operating system or any Linux distro. Suspend/resume, even with the wifi running, is instantaneous. Has to be seen to be believed. All hardware/brightness/sound keys will work out of the box without some ugly hack. It really is night and day.
And much of the userland originally came from FreeBSD as well.
To expand. If it's a script it has a script handler. If it has a script handler it can be rewritten.
There's no reason they couldn't add a few features from newer scripting languages to enable forking of functions or "own fun". If the kernel (the one running said script with said script handler) supports multiple cores/threads it could easily be the more modularized, etc.
All still from one script.
Wut?? XNU comes from Mach and FreeBSD. OS X userland is totally FreeBSD. NeXTSTEP? Sounds like you're thinking about objective C, a programming language. That's not OS X.
And yes, there's a reason netflix uses BSD. The network stack is so much better than linux. Why do you think facebook is jealous too?
Wut?? XNU comes from Mach and FreeBSD. OS X userland is totally FreeBSD. NeXTSTEP? Sounds like you're thinking about objective C, a programming language. That's not OS X.
"Wut??" yourself. XNU originated at NeXT when Steve Jobs used to work there. It had parts added from FreeBSD later in development, but it by no means "comes from" there. People saying OS X is "just" FreeBSD are making a gross over-simplification. FreeBSD, for instance, didn't have Core Image, Quartz, Aqua, Finder, Grand Central Dispatch, Mach-O, Cocoa, etc. Some of these were backported from OS X to FreeBSD, MidnightBSD, and others.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action...
You don't know how to call a script from inside a script? Also - my openbsd box seems to have an interesting number of rc.d scripts.
$ uname -sr /etc/rc.d ....
OpenBSD 5.2
$ ls
amd apmd bgpd bootparamd cron ddclient dhcpd dhcrelay dnsmasq
76 scripts in total.
bloody nonsense. I've been using OpenBSD for nearly 20 years and never had to recompile the kernel to use anything in ports.
For someone who doesn't care about OpenBSD, you sure sound off a lot on it.
I can't use several of my machines because of lack of drivers for horribly common hardware which is nearly identical to supported hardware and for which a fix has actually been submitted on the mailing list. In spite of it being only some changes in values and not in the basic functionality of the driver, they begged off adopting the changes because of concerns with Linux copyright, which has already been shown to not apply in this case. Just NIH. Well, fuck 'em. I'll use something with some support.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I use ports all the time, and I've never compiled my own kernel.
Seriously?
How do you apply kernel security patches such as this one?
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/Ope...
Why would anyone want a newer scripting language? That is like wanting to build a house from new bricks. If you know the old language, you can use it. If you don't, then perhaps you should not be messing with the system initialisation?
Its not like normal admins have to write these scripts - the people who manage ports supply them for you, and have a tool that puts them in the right place.Most people run OBSD because they want to have a system that runs their apps, not so they can experiment with the boot process. OBSD boots really fast. (Unless you screw up your fstab - like I did last week - In which case it might not boot at all).
Do you also complain about the type of pipe clip your car manufacturer uses on the under-bonnet pipes?
If you want to use Java to write a systemd replacement, then go ahead - I wont stop you. Do like Linus, and write your own damned OS.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Do those daemons start in parallel, or do you have to wait 30 minutes for your server to come up while your customer base is pounding on the door?
Some of the less-helpful "community" members could do with a kick up the arse though, better to not post than to post an RTFM without at least pointing out which bit of TFM to R. I'm sure that often they don't know the answer themselves. (Not to be mistaken with mails from time-starved people that are equally short but do actually point people in the right direction...)
If they have root there are plenty of other things they could do which would be far simpler.
Yep, but ironically loading kernel modules is not one of those things, as root cannot just load a kernel module without taking the machine single-user.
(Yes, the link is about NetBSD's securelevel, but all the BSDs have this/an equivalent 'securelevel' mechanism)
Not that there's anything wrong with that. OpenBSD will remain a niche product run by a handful of users that otherwise run Macs (oh, citation needed? http://assets.keltia.net/photo... ) and other than being primary sources of OpenSSH and hopefully systemd shims, completely irrelevant.
It seems you took a picture of FreeBSD users, which indeed often run Macs. But FreeBSD runs on Macs too...
systemd shim is useful to simplify porting software that idiots thought it was useful to make systemd dependent. The most popular of this software is something I stopped using years ago because the devs were taking bad decisions, so that's not new.
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
You're confusing xnu (kernel) with quartz, etc (userland/gui). The next kernel was most definitely derived from Mach and BSD.
my openbsd box boots in about a minute. 2 minutes tops for boxes that are on the heavier side.
No, seriously!