Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Moore <> | Date | Sun, 12 Nov 2023 23:06:05 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] security: Don't yet account for IMA in LSM_CONFIG_COUNT calculation |
| |
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:36 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > 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.
Now merged into lsm/dev, thanks Roberto!
-- paul-moore.com
| |