Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenBSD Drops Support For Loadable Kernel Modules

Posted by Soulskill on from the loadable-kernel-modules-have-had-it-too-good-for-too-long dept.

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.

12 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. If they're doing it, it's correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by ZorkZero · · Score: 5, Funny

      That sound you just heard in the distance? The puckering of a million Linux fanboys' butts.

    2. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      HP rep - a HP-UX sales guy - once told me that their kernel doesn't support loadable modules to prevent even the remote possibility of a malicious driver.

      But why OpenBSD choose to do it, I have no idea. Frankly, I was under impression that OpenBSD didn't support loadable kernel modules at all.

      To some the kernel drivers might seem a norm, but even 15 years ago they were still considered a novelty. And everybody was still making jokes about Microsoft's Plug-n-Play.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  2. Not Your Typical Loadable Kernel Modules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Phoronix, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...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?

    1. Re:Phoronix, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Presumably, AC meant Ted Unangst, the OpenBSD developer who authored the lkm removal commits.

    2. Re:Phoronix, why? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well that's no fair, you must've RTFA!

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  4. Re:When was the last time you compiled a kernel? by preaction · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Not Your Typical Loadable Kernel Modules by chriscappuccio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is it. Old implementation, low quality, and NOTHING USES IT. Bye bye!

  6. Re:Djeezus by ndato · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The official changelog also says they removed LKM http://www.openbsd.org/faq/cur...

  7. Code compression by Theovon · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  8. Holy crap... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?