[lsb-discuss] Does LSB define kernel modules ?

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Fri Apr 20 10:22:45 PDT 2007

On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 17:36 +0100, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> I have briefly read the LSB 3.1 specification, and found nothing about
> kernel modules, that must exist, either pre-compiled built-in or as
> modules.

That's generally correct.  (Technically, we do require some things that
can be built as modules, but they tend to be things that the system
wouldn't work without anyway, such as ELF executable support.)

> This is bad, since some applications depend on this or that module.
> Examples:
> NTFS-3G requires FUSE module
> All Virtualization software: (VirtualBox/VMWare) need
> CONFIG_USB_DEVICEFS module for USB support.
> To make this kind of software LSB-compatible we need to define min
> modules that must present on any Linux system.
> What do you think of it?

There's been some talk recently about standardizing more of the kernel

In general, we want to standardize interfaces, not implementations.  So,
for example, instead of requiring the FUSE module, we would more likely
standardize the /dev/fuse device and the ioctls used to perform
operations on it, or alternatively the C ABI in libfuse.

Additionally, we want to standardize current best practices.  In the
particular case of CONFIG_USB_DEVICEFS, it's my understanding that the
option is deprecated due to security issues, and is not enabled on the
latest versions of SuSE.  We do not have the power to force SuSE (or
anyone else) to include things, especially if those things entail a
potential risk.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list