linux-kernel - Re: Simple module for 2.6 request?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0611041043380.6189@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:50:05 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	"lkml-2006i-ticket@...core.pl" <lkml-2006i-ticket@...core.pl>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Simple module for 2.6 request?

>how to by hand build a module.

Compilation has too many flags and too many steps to be reasonably done 
by hand. Unlike *cough* BSD or Solaris, the Linux kernel makefile system 
is designed to reasonably support external modules using all the 
necessary parameters the kernel you are compiling for needs. You know, I 
always get a shudder when I have to think of Solaris not having 
MODVERSIONS or even VERMAGIC -- it is dangerous because it allows you to 
build stuff that can fubar more easily.

>gcc -o foo.c -ko foo.ko -DMODULE -D__KERNEL__
>-I/usr/src/kernel-headers-directory/include/

gcc: unrecognized option '-ko'

>How to add them by hand (not using all the big Makefiles normally
>included in kernel tree)?

Who said they are big? Look at 
http://jengelh.hopto.org/f/oops_ko.tar.bz2 for a _really_ simple module.

	-`J'
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/