linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

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

Message-Id: <200712312005.17384.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date:	Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:05:16 +0100
From:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To:	"Torsten Kaiser" <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>
Cc:	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>, "Bodo Eggert" <7eggert@....de>,
	"Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>, devzero@....de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

On Monday 31 December 2007 19:37:43 Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> The base problem is that there already are many options to break
> external modules. (CONFIG_MODULES=n ;) )

Exactly. There already are enough ways to break external modules.
No need to introduce more. ;)

> The question I can't answer in this context is: Do distributions want
> to support external modules?
> Only if yes, your argument is valid. But then they could just disable
> this feature and prevent this kind of bugreports.

That's my point. Nobody will risk bugs to save a few bytes of memory.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
--
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/