On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:54 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:30:24 -0500 Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > 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. > > > This config still fails to build in linux-next-20090212. And the ^^^ > statement above may be correct, but it's not enforced in Kconfig, so let's > do that, OK? The patch looks good to me, but looking at the code, http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git;a=blob_plain;f=mm/shmem.c;hb=168b70b72a78f289046823d810c29376e211a6de it doesn't look like the previous patch was applied. > > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> > > IMA_LSM_RULES requires AUDIT. This is automatic if SECURITY_SELINUX=y > but not when SECURITY_SMACK=y (and SECURITY_SELINUX=n), so make the > dependency explicit. This fixes the following build error: > > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:111:error: implicit declaration of function 'security_audit_rule_match' > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:230:error: implicit declaration of function 'security_audit_rule_init' > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > --- linux-next-20090212.orig/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > +++ linux-next-20090212/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ config IMA_AUDIT > > config IMA_LSM_RULES > bool > - depends on IMA && (SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK) > + depends on IMA && AUDIT && (SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK) > default y > help > - Disabling this option will disregard LSM based policy rules > + Disabling this option will disregard LSM based policy rules. -- 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
