Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:40:50 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for February 10 (security/audit/ima) |
| |
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?
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |