lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] security: Don't yet account for IMA in LSM_CONFIG_COUNT calculation
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:59 AM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:12 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 10:48 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Oct 26, 2023 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since IMA is not yet an LSM, don't account for it in the LSM_CONFIG_COUNT
> > > > calculation, used to limit how many LSMs can invoke security_add_hooks().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > security/security.c | 1 -
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Merged into lsm/dev-staging, thanks!
> >
> > Welcome!
> >
> > Could you please also rebase lsm/dev-staging, to move ab3888c7198d
> > ("LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls") after f7875966dc0c
> > ("tools headers UAPI: Sync files changed by new fchmodat2 and
> > map_shadow_stack syscalls with the kernel sources")?
>
> Let me look into that, as long as it doesn't blow up the stuff in
> lsm/dev (I don't think it would), I'll go ahead and rebase to v6.6-rc4
> which should resolve the syscall numbering conflict.
>
> FWIW, I also hit the same problem with my kernel-secnext builds, if
> you're using those RPMs you'll find it's already resolved there.

That wasn't very messy so I've rebased lsm/dev-staging to v6.6-rc4 and
regenerated lsm/next. If you notice any problems please let me know.

--
paul-moore.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-26 18:36    [W:0.060 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site