Talk:Loadable kernel module

message: This article contains mostly general info about LKM and i don't think it needs to be Linux-specific. Linux is OK as an example, though. ~~helix84 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article contains mostly general info about LKM

message: I have heard of LKMs referred-to as KLMs (Kernel Loadable Modules). Is this common usage? Should the KLM initialism also be captured here? ppblais 13:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KLM or LKM ? 

message: Just wondering, about the rebooting, I didn't know that the kernel in Windows has to be rebuilt before rebooting -- is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.136.51 (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuilding in Windows 

message: The Linux maintainers tolerate the distribution of proprietary modules, but allow symbols to be marked as only available to GPL modules.
What is a symbol? --Abdull 11:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol? 

message: The current article seems to provide little detail on the actual process of loading and unloading LKMs. Can anyone provide more information on this, even if it has to be OS-specific? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 05:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail on loading 

message: Isn't there a category of code that is "open" (in the sense of publicly disclosed) but still "proprietary" (copyrighted or otherwise legally controlled)?  Are maintainers put off only by the inability to read the source code, or is there also an issue of tainted "free-ness?" Mrnatural (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real nature of "tainting"? 

message: With revert 261265695, the reference to ABI Breakage in RELENG_7 (by a member of the FreeBSD release engineering team) was removed, because "it may not be broken. this was a special case, since it didn't affect anything - no filesystem in ports uses that part of the api." Is there a source for that claim? I do not really question this, because neither UPDATING for RELENG_7 nor the 7.1 release notes contain anything about it and neither the announcement nor the commit message list any real consequences, which I would expect. (Anyhow, I thought rebuilding *-kmod ports would have been necessary.) 85.177.240.32 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  API/ABI stability on FreeBSD 

message: Mentioning of a new idea in Linux-Systems to use LKM for hot-patching the kernel might shed a different light on the security of LKM. Or maybe it deserves a entry in See also. 91.37.162.218 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Security" addendum re: [[KSplice]] 

message: I don't think that the security section should exist in this article.
Kernels that use loadable modules are no less secure than regular monolithic kernels that do not.
This is because, assuming someone has the ability to replace (or add) a root kit module, then that means the attacker can probably replace the kernel image itself.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like a valid section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.193.92 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section already says that, but also explains that an LKM can make it easier to hide the attack. I added a source for that. Jeff Song (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security section is a bit unfounded