Thread: [Devil-linux-develop] netfilter modules

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Hey Guys,

I was thinking if we should compile all the Netfilter stuff into the Ke=
rnel
and don't use modules.
What do you think about that?

cu
  Heiko
=

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:33:11PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> 
> I was thinking if we should compile all the Netfilter stuff into the Kernel
> and don't use modules.
> What do you think about that?

Yep, that's fine as long as you disable "CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG" :-)

btw. I'm still testing my stuff before I submit it. I also need an
extension to the network script to support the "sethdlc" and
"pc300cfg" commands prior to ifconfig aka ip. I'll implement it. It
will be the only thing I touch outside the packages except kernel
config.

bye
  MM

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 23:38:18 +0200
"Martin Mueller" <mm...@si...> wrote:
> Yep, that's fine as long as you disable "CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG" :-)
Just did it, it's already checked in (v0.6).

> btw. I'm still testing my stuff before I submit it. I also need an
> extension to the network script to support the "sethdlc" and
> "pc300cfg" commands prior to ifconfig aka ip. I'll implement it. It
> will be the only thing I touch outside the packages except kernel
> config.

I don't know for what that stuff is, but I think you know what you do. ;-)

-- 

cu
  Heiko

http://www.devil-linux.org

Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> I was thinking if we should compile all the Netfilter stuff into the Kernel
> and don't use modules.
> What do you think about that?

Either no modules or all drivers and stuff as modules.
Or what do you want to accomplish - security?

-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock

Hi,

Is there any performance or ram usage difference between module based or kernel
compiled drivers ??

John

--- Friedrich Lobenstock <fl...@fl...> wrote:
> Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> > I was thinking if we should compile all the Netfilter stuff into the Kernel
> > and don't use modules.
> > What do you think about that?
> 
> Either no modules or all drivers and stuff as modules.
> Or what do you want to accomplish - security?
> 
> -- 
> MfG / Regards
> Friedrich Lobenstock
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
> August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-develop mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop

=====
John van Vlaanderen

      #############################################
      #    CXN, Inc. Contact:  jo...@th...   #               #
      #      Proud Sponsor of The Linux Society   #
      #        http://www.thelinuxsociety.org     #                 
      #############################################

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

John van V. wrote:
>
> Is there any performance or ram usage difference between module based or kernel
> compiled drivers ??

Of course there is a ram difference if all modules are compiled in - the
kernel get's bigger with each module. There might be a slight performance
increase if the modules are not loaded as modules.

-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock

Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> 
> Either no modules or all drivers and stuff as modules.
> Or what do you want to accomplish - security?
> 

To be more accurate I think that we either have, as a security feature,
no modules loadable (all are compiled in) or we can have modules. In the
later case what makes the difference in making some modules compiled in
and others not? I would either go for all or nothing but not for a thing
inbetween.

-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock

Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> 
>>
>> Either no modules or all drivers and stuff as modules.
>> Or what do you want to accomplish - security?

I really don't like modules and the Netfilter stuff should be used on 
any DL box anyway.
I'll try later how it affects the memory usage, when I compile most 
stuff not as modules.

-- 

cu
   Heiko

We are Penguin, Resistance is futile!

http://www.devil-linux.org

On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:05:08 -0400
"Heiko Zuerker" <he...@zu...> wrote:

> I'll try later how it affects the memory usage, when I compile most 
> stuff not as modules.

Forgett about it, I changed only a couple of modules and lost 800kB of RAM.

-- 

cu
  Heiko

http://www.devil-linux.org

Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:05:08 -0400
> "Heiko Zuerker" <he...@zu...> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'll try later how it affects the memory usage, when I compile most 
>>stuff not as modules.
> 
> 
> Forgett about it, I changed only a couple of modules and lost 800kB of RAM.
> 

Sorry, Heiko but I have to say either we stay completely modular or not.
If someone needs a module he has to take care to load it. It's not that
hard.

What I'd like to see instead is which additional netfilter patches got applied
and therefore which additional modules are available. That would really help
instead of a cosmetic work-around like compiling some modules in the kernel.

-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock