Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/10/2009 05:40:50 PM: > Hi Randy, > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:55:12 -0800 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > Dropped trees (temporarily): > > > audit (difficult conflicts) > > > > Maybe this is fixed by the dropped audit tree? > > The audit tree is Al Viro's (cc'd). But I *think* everything in it has > been applied upstream. > > > linux-next-20090210/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:111: error: implicit > declaration of function 'security_audit_rule_match' > > linux-next-20090210/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:230: error: implicit > declaration of function 'security_audit_rule_init' > > > > when > > CONFIG_SECURITY=y > > CONFIG_AUDIT=n > > CONFIG_IMA=y > > CONFIG_IMA_AUDIT=y > > This looks more like a security subsystem than audit to me? These are the IMA Kconfig rules: CONFIG_IMA=y CONFIG_IMA_MEASURE_PCR_IDX=10 CONFIG_IMA_AUDIT=y CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES=y CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES requires the audit subsystem. The default measurement policy is not defined terms of the LSM extended attributes, and thus is not required. Mimi -- 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
