From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Kelly <akelly@transparency.org>
Subject: Re: Monolithic kernel again
Date: 13 Sep 2004 10:09:47 +0200
Sender: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <1095062986.19331.5.camel@hermes.at.home>
References: <Pine.SOL.4.56.0409101549150.19830@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
	 <20040910131336.4ff36228@matth.ilan.cogent.net>
	 <Pine.SOL.4.56.0409101619260.21469@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
	 <20040910135350.65bcd356@matth.ilan.cogent.net>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409101427090.13265@yossarian.aniota.net>
	 <Pine.SOL.4.56.0409101932410.27575@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
	 <4142E82E.2030303@sancharnet.in>
	 <Pine.SOL.4.56.0409111934210.7390@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.56.0409111934210.7390@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
List-Id: <linux-admin.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "linux-admin@vger.kernel.org" <linux-admin@vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 01:36, Tony Gogoi wrote:
> > why don't you just do a make modules_install ?  maybe it just needs the
> > presence of such a file
> > regardless of wether your kernel is modular or not.... atleast, if
> > nothing else , to ensure that there are no module
> > dependencies.....
> >
> A modular kernel may be a little more unstable then a monolithic kernel
> I've heard. I feel it would be better to have a monolithic kernel for a
> server. At least there won't be any probing for a non-existent device +
> race conditions.

Another good reason (my primary reason, actually) for putting a
monolithic kernel in a server is for security's sake. 
Not being able to load modules narrows the threat vector a bit.

Andy