Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:01:45
Message-Id: 20121118180059.2875.qmail@stuge.se
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012) by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 Duncan wrote:
2 > kmod itself is trivial in size time and space requirements, but it's
3 > the principle as much as anything, and in the case of an unneeded
4 > module loader there's an additional security concern as well
5
6 I'm afraid this is flawed. If you want to hinder modules from being
7 loaded then you need to disable modules in the kernel, and not rely
8 on insmod not being installed on the system.
9
10 Look at insmod in asmutils, my guess is that actual work of loading a
11 module is less than 42 instructions.
12
13
14 > risk or maintenance cost .. on a monolithic kernel gentoo system, a
15 > kernel module loader increases both
16
17 Forget about the loader. Your knob is in a different configuration,
18 specifically CONFIG_MODULES=n in the kernel.
19
20
21 That said, it's a perfectly good point that kmod is a useless
22 dependency on your system and all like it, and that it would be
23 nice for Gentoo to know about this and not pull it in.
24
25 I guess this could be accomplished with a USE=kernelmodules flag
26 that makes the dep optional and applies a simple patch or two
27 before building udev from systemd sources, and I guess that patches
28 for the udev ebuild are welcome. :)
29
30
31 //Peter

Replies