Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:41:25 -0400 | From | Konrad Rzeszutek <> | Subject | Re: [mmotm] iscsi_ibft build error |
| |
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:45:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:56:55 -0700 > Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > > mmotm-2008-0318-1720/drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.c: In function 'ibft_show_attribute': > > mmotm-2008-0318-1720/drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.c:521: error: implicit declaration of function 'capable' > > mmotm-2008-0318-1720/drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.c:521: error: 'CAP_SYS_ADMIN' undeclared (first use in this function) > > mmotm-2008-0318-1720/drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.c:521: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > > mmotm-2008-0318-1720/drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.c:521: error: for each function it appears in.) > > make[3]: *** [drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.o] Error 1 > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.c~scsi-add-iscsi-ibft-support-fix > +++ a/drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft.c > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ > > > #include <linux/blkdev.h> > +#include <linux/capability.h> > #include <linux/ctype.h> > #include <linux/device.h> > #include <linux/err.h> > > should do the trick. > > Does this driver actually need to run capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)? Can we not > rely upon permissions of the reelvant sysfs file?
I followed what the efivars driver does. The permissions of the files are secure (as they are in the efivars), so one layer of protection could be suffice?
| |