lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for February 10 (security/audit/ima)
From
Date
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote on 02/10/2009 05:40:50 PM:

> Hi Randy,
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:55:12 -0800 Randy Dunlap
<randy.dunlap@oracle.com> 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




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-11 01:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans