On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:59 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:12 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 10:48 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Oct 26, 2023 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since IMA is not yet an LSM, don't account for it in the LSM_CONFIG_COUNT
> > > > calculation, used to limit how many LSMs can invoke security_add_hooks().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > security/security.c | 1 -
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Merged into lsm/dev-staging, thanks!
> >
> > Welcome!
> >
> > Could you please also rebase lsm/dev-staging, to move ab3888c7198d
> > ("LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls") after f7875966dc0c
> > ("tools headers UAPI: Sync files changed by new fchmodat2 and
> > map_shadow_stack syscalls with the kernel sources")?
>
> Let me look into that, as long as it doesn't blow up the stuff in
> lsm/dev (I don't think it would), I'll go ahead and rebase to v6.6-rc4
> which should resolve the syscall numbering conflict.
>
> FWIW, I also hit the same problem with my kernel-secnext builds, if
> you're using those RPMs you'll find it's already resolved there.
That wasn't very messy so I've rebased lsm/dev-staging to v6.6-rc4 and
regenerated lsm/next. If you notice any problems please let me know.
--
paul-moore.com
