Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I can't seem to find any documentation on the subject. I'm working on putting together a linux install for a fairly "dirty" environment. Best practice there would be a statically compiled kernel with no module support. I can already do the customizations to strip out unnecessary drivers/etc to get the performance and disable module support. Does anyone have a link or any ideas on how to get the Oracle Virtualbox module (not the OSE one, I need USB passthrough) compiled in?

share|improve this question
Did you accomplished that ? I was on that too, almost done, but got problems – warl0ck Aug 3 '12 at 6:46
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The vboxdrv driver is a third party kernel component. It is a typical practice to create such drivers in the form of loadable modules. Since it is created by the Oracle dev team, they are the ones to decide on the form of the driver and you'd need to ask them for a kernel patch that would provide a built-in driver.

I seriously doubt they do provide this, nor that they would see it worth the effort to create such version of the driver. That's because hardly anyone would benefit from a built-in version, because it requires much more complicated building procedure (must be done together building the whole kernel, which has to be patched beforehand). For the dev team, it is also easier to maintain a module version.

share|improve this answer
thanks for the response. this is kind of what I'm afraid of. i'm looking at a horribly hackish solution at the moment. – RobotHumans Nov 13 '11 at 20:53
Just curious: you mean converting the module version into a built-in driver on your own? I'd guess that might be the only way... If you have the skill. – jankes Nov 13 '11 at 21:07
It would be stupid hackish, but if you did something silly like instead of disabling module support...modifying the function to something else and instead of pointing to a file, putting the module in the kernel as a resource type of thing. or even adding a hash check for modules before they load. just something other than naked module support – RobotHumans Nov 14 '11 at 3:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .