lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -next] security/audit/ima: fix build error
    From
    Date
    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@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.
    >
    >
    > 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@oracle.com>
    >
    > 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@oracle.com>
    Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>

    > ---
    > 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.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-12 19:27    [W:0.027 / U:0.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site