> > No.
> Thanks for the rather terse answers, however I was hoping someone could
> explain to me why it seems that OpenBSD and other BSDs in general take
> such a firm standpoint against LKMs
> Is it because of lack of developers?, lack of interest?, are LKMs in some
> way fundamentally incompatible with the way OpenBSD has been secured?
The developers are not interested. It's not like you loose much when you run
In Real Life you don't fiddle with your machines every day adding and removing
hardware, moving disks, etc. This is too expensive (the fiddling time is
expensive and the hardware breaks easier). So it's not considered to be
expensive to rebuild the kernel every time you change the hardware
LKMs give compatibility problems, stability problems, optimization problems,
security problems and are generally not necessary when you use your system
Quote:> I did ask this question before, in this list and got blown of with a "..if
> you use the generic kernel you wont have to rebuild for every device...".
The answer is still the same. Use GENERIC when you fiddle (most developers
run GENERIC) or use your own customized kernel in production. Or, put down
some time and implement a good LKM framework.