On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from init/main.c:35:
> include/linux/security.h:1788: error: static declaration of 'security_capable' follows non-static declaration
> include/linux/capability.h:524: error: previous declaration of 'security_capable' was here
> include/linux/security.h:1793: error: static declaration of 'security_capable_noaudit' follows non-static declaration
> include/linux/capability.h:525: error: previous declaration of 'security_capable_noaudit' was here
>
> Caused by commit 06112163f5fd9e491a7f810443d81efa9d88e247 ("Add a new
> capable interface that will be used by systems that use audit to").
>
> Please compile test with and without CONFIG_SECURITY.
Done, with the patch below (now pushed to the tree).
commit 92a77aac9812d5397abbe6f1920e085e50838635
Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Nov 12 21:20:00 2008 +1100
security: remove broken and useless declarations
Remove broken declarations for security_capable* functions,
which were not needed anyway.
Signed-off-by: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/include/linux/capability.h b/include/linux/capability.h
index b313ba1..7f26580 100644
--- a/include/linux/capability.h
+++ b/include/linux/capability.h
@@ -521,8 +521,6 @@ extern const kernel_cap_t __cap_init_eff_set;
kernel_cap_t cap_set_effective(const kernel_cap_t pE_new);
-extern int security_capable(struct task_struct *t, int cap);
-extern int security_capable_noaudit(struct task_struct *t, int cap);
/**
* has_capability - Determine if a task has a superior capability available
* @t: The task in question
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
