At 16:21 04/04/02, Rik van Riel wrote:
>Absolutely agreed. I've already seen it happen a few times that
>a user needed _2_ binary-only modules, modules which weren't even
>available for the same kernel version.
>
>As it stands right now it is IMPOSSIBLE to support binary only
>drivers and I can only see two ways out of this situation:
>
>(1) don't allow binary only modules at all
>
>(2) have a stable ABI for binary only modules and don't allow
> these binary only modules to use other symbols, so people
> in need of binary only modules won't be locked to one
> particular version of the kernel (or have two binary only
> modules locked to _different_ versions of the kernel)
Both or these aren't really practical once you think it through. Don't
forget that each binary module can be wrapped by an GPL-module which the
kernel cannot do anything at all about and the kernel would never even know
a binary only module was loaded because the GPL module does it. There is no
such thing as security... This kind of thing is already in use by at least
two companies I know of (i.e. using open sourced glue modules to binary
only code) so it is not just a theory I am making up...
Just my 2p.
Anton
-- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 22:00:14 EST