is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Jared Robert » Fri, 28 Jul 1995 04:00:00



Okay, I admit I'm a total newbie to Linux and UNIX systems in general, but I
have been here long enough to hear that Linux may soon support of loading
kernel modules on the fly (at least, that's what it sounded like), but that it
might be difficult to manage as an end user.  Is it possible to create a
filesystem that would act like a module loader?  For instance if I compile a
module to allow me access to Macintosh filesystems, I could copy the binary to
/kernel/filesystems and have it instantly take effect, without rebooting?  Is
this even possible, or has this been done many times before?  
--
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|  Jared Roberts                      |  Ultima Dragons: Internet Chapter     |



+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Lex Spo » Fri, 28 Jul 1995 04:00:00


: Okay, I admit I'm a total newbie to Linux and UNIX systems in general, but I
: have been here long enough to hear that Linux may soon support of loading
: kernel modules on the fly (at least, that's what it sounded like), but that it
: might be difficult to manage as an end user.  Is it possible to create a
: filesystem that would act like a module loader?  For instance if I compile a
: module to allow me access to Macintosh filesystems, I could copy the binary to
: /kernel/filesystems and have it instantly take effect, without rebooting?  Is
: this even possible, or has this been done many times before?  

The support is already there;  however, instead of copying the
binary to a certain place, you would type "insmod mymodule.o".
Check out the file "README.modules" in the kernel source :)

Lex

 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Michael Ashto » Mon, 31 Jul 1995 04:00:00




>: Okay, I admit I'm a total newbie to Linux and UNIX systems in general, but I
>: have been here long enough to hear that Linux may soon support of loading
>: kernel modules on the fly (at least, that's what it sounded like), but that it
>: might be difficult to manage as an end user.  Is it possible to create a
>: filesystem that would act like a module loader?  For instance if I compile a
>: module to allow me access to Macintosh filesystems, I could copy the binary to
>: /kernel/filesystems and have it instantly take effect, without rebooting?  Is
>: this even possible, or has this been done many times before?  
>The support is already there;  however, instead of copying the
>binary to a certain place, you would type "insmod mymodule.o".
>Check out the file "README.modules" in the kernel source :)

And further, Lex, if you are seriously suggesting that users should be able to
insert their code into the kernel without superuser intervention, you'd
better buy a book or two on Unix, its principles and aims.
--

  "If I could see before the blindness, the smile you gave before the pain,
      I could accept a world of darkness, and never see the sun again".
 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Jared Robert » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>And further, Lex, if you are seriously suggesting that users should be able to
>insert their code into the kernel without superuser intervention, you'd
>better buy a book or two on Unix, its principles and aims.

(I'm assuming you meant me instead of Lex)

No, I don't suggest that it would be world read or writable, I just think it
would be easier to manage.  I think it would be nice that if I compile my
kernel without ext2fs support, and later decide that I want it in, I don't want
to recompile it, or use any other program, I think it would be nice just to
compile the one filesystem code and then cp ext2fs.o /proc/kernel/filesystems,
or whatever...  It provides an easy way to make changes using commands that
most people already know, and I thought it might be useful.
--
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|  Jared Roberts                      |  Ultima Dragons: Internet Chapter     |



+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+

 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Norbert Thi » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00



: : ...  Is it possible to create a
: : filesystem that would act like a module loader?  For instance if I compile a
: : module to allow me access to Macintosh filesystems, I could copy the binary
: : to /kernel/filesystems and have it instantly take effect, without rebooting?

: The support is already there;  however, instead of copying the
: binary to a certain place, you would type "insmod mymodule.o".
: Check out the file "README.modules" in the kernel source :)

Sure, the functionality is available, but it would be much more
transparent to have a /kernel filesystem where a simple ls
is sufficient to verify which modules are available.
Would it be a lot of work to implement such a filesystem?

norbert
_____

 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Alain Kna » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00




: : : ...  Is it possible to create a
: : : filesystem that would act like a module loader?  For instance if I compile a
: : : module to allow me access to Macintosh filesystems, I could copy the binary
: : : to /kernel/filesystems and have it instantly take effect, without rebooting?

: : The support is already there;  however, instead of copying the
: : binary to a certain place, you would type "insmod mymodule.o".
: : Check out the file "README.modules" in the kernel source :)

: Sure, the functionality is available, but it would be much more
: transparent to have a /kernel filesystem where a simple ls
: is sufficient to verify which modules are available.
: Would it be a lot of work to implement such a filesystem?

 Is it really too much to ask that you type lsmod instead of ls? Or
cat /proc/modules, if you like the filesystem abstraction that much
:-)

 The advantage of having most of the function of insmod *outside* the
kernel are:
 1. The (insmod) code is only loaded when used
 2. It is more flexible.

: norbert
: _____

--
 Alain

 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Carlo James Cali » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00




>: The support is already there;  however, instead of copying the
>: binary to a certain place, you would type "insmod mymodule.o".
>: Check out the file "README.modules" in the kernel source :)

>Sure, the functionality is available, but it would be much more
>transparent to have a /kernel filesystem where a simple ls
>is sufficient to verify which modules are available.
>Would it be a lot of work to implement such a filesystem?

I wouldn't put it in the kernel.  Just create a dir /kernel and write
a daemon that would periodically check it for new files every once in a
while.  When a new module pops up there the daemon insmods it.  I can
see this being fairly useful and you can keep some security by making it
non-world readable if you want.  In any case DON'T add a new fs to the
kernel.  That's just bloat.

--
 /------------------------------+--------------------------------------\
| Carlo J. Calica               | Linux:  Choice of the GNU Generation  |

 \ University of Wisconsin      | Republic of Madison                  /

 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by Jared Robert » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>I wouldn't put it in the kernel.  Just create a dir /kernel and write
>a daemon that would periodically check it for new files every once in a
>while.  When a new module pops up there the daemon insmods it.  I can
>see this being fairly useful and you can keep some security by making it
>non-world readable if you want.  In any case DON'T add a new fs to the
>kernel.  That's just bloat.

Alright, you've convinced me, forget I said anything :^).
--
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|  Jared Roberts                      |  Ultima Dragons: Internet Chapter     |



+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
 
 
 

is a /kernel filesystem feasable?

Post by bert » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00


A scheme for automatically loading and unloading modules has already
been implemented.  Check out kerneld, part of modules-1.2.8.

Scott J. Bertin

 
 
 

1. Driver shortage!!! Windows ersatz feasable?

        Would it be possible (not extremely difficult) to use
Windows drivers under Linux? As there seems to be some shortage of them
(for example USB scanner drivers or some new GFX cards), it would be
a nice short term solution to be able to use existing Windows drivers.

        saludos,
                Hermann Samso

*sigh*

2. !!!HELP!!! Zombies claim Sparc 2 running Solaris 2.5

3. Is a getty server replacing multiple getty processes feasable?

4. wanted - tcp connection distributor

5. gcc based 8051 compiler feasable?

6. xinit file missing for X86

7. Netware on a Linux Station... Feasable?

8. I cant login as root!

9. This clone thing...am I stupid, or am I right?

10. I am with the following error, when i am running lilo...

11. Am I touchy? Or am I right?

12. Am I seeing IPv5, or am I hallucinating?