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    [W:0.022 / U:0.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site