Re: [integrity:next-integrity-testing 5/5] security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c:53:6: error: redefinition of 'ima_init_key_queue'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/5/2020 1:00 AM, kbuild test robot wrote:


security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c:53:6: error: redefinition of 'ima_init_key_queue'
     void ima_init_key_queue(void)
          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    In file included from security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c:16:0:
    security/integrity/ima/ima.h:222:20: note: previous definition of 'ima_init_key_queue' was here
     static inline void ima_init_key_queue(void) {}

In the given config file the following configs are specified

	CONFIG_IMA=y
	CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE=m

If CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE is selected ima_asymmetric_keys.c file is built and linked (as given in the Makefile). ima_init_key_queue() is declared in ima.h

But if CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE is not selected ima_asymmetric_keys.c is not built. ima_init_key_queue() is declared as an empty function (static inline in ima.h)

#ifdef CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE
void ima_init_key_queue(void);
#else
static inline void ima_init_key_queue(void) {}
#endif /* CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE */

If I understand the reported build error, it looks like CONFIG_ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE was disabled first and then enabled later - in the same build sequence.

Is that correct?

thanks,
 -lakshmi



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux