On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:16:38 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:15:44 -0500
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Fix a build error when CONFIG_BLOCK is not enabled, by defining
> > a wrapper called blk_part_pack_uuid(). The wrapper returns
> > -EINVAL, when CONFIG_BLOCK is not defined.
> >
> > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:538:4: error: implicit declaration
> > of function 'part_pack_uuid' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >
> > ...
> >
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > index b27535a..399433a 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > ima_log_string(ab, "fsuuid", args[0].from);
> >
> > if (memchr_inv(entry->fsuuid, 0x00,
> > - sizeof(entry->fsuuid))) {
> > + sizeof(entry->fsuuid))) {
> > result = -EINVAL;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - part_pack_uuid(args[0].from, entry->fsuuid);
> > - entry->flags |= IMA_FSUUID;
> > - result = 0;
> > + result = blk_part_pack_uuid(args[0].from,
> > + entry->fsuuid);
> > + if (!result)
> > + entry->flags |= IMA_FSUUID;
>
> This will cause ima_parse_rule() to newly return -EINVAL if the fsuuid=
> option is used when CONFIG_BLOCK=n.
>
> This functional change was not changelogged, forcing me to ask: was it
> deliberate or was it accidental?
>
> And it is a non-back-compatible change, introducing some potential to
> break existing userspace code. Is the risk considered acceptable? If
> so, why?
ah, I see that the fsuuid stuff is new in 3.9, so there are no issues.
--
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
