From: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: linux-next: security-testing tree build failure
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:05:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1226498706.3353.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0811122155510.12886@tundra.namei.org>
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 21:56 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > In file included from init/main.c:35:
> > include/linux/security.h:1788: error: static declaration of 'security_capable' follows non-static declaration
> > include/linux/capability.h:524: error: previous declaration of 'security_capable' was here
> > include/linux/security.h:1793: error: static declaration of 'security_capable_noaudit' follows non-static declaration
> > include/linux/capability.h:525: error: previous declaration of 'security_capable_noaudit' was here
> >
> > Caused by commit 06112163f5fd9e491a7f810443d81efa9d88e247 ("Add a new
> > capable interface that will be used by systems that use audit to").
> >
> > Please compile test with and without CONFIG_SECURITY.
>
> Done, with the patch below (now pushed to the tree).
Only works in the config security case because every function that calls
has_capability() also includes security.h
Since these are inlined the original caller needs to have the
security_capable and security_capable_noaudit prototype. The filesystem
changes to use this new interface often do not already #include
security.h. I'll look at it and wrap them in CONFIG_SECURITY rather
than include security.h in all the filesystem changes.....
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-12 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-12 5:05 linux-next: security-testing tree build failure Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-12 10:56 ` James Morris
2008-11-12 14:05 ` Eric Paris [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-11-13 7:46 Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-14 7:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-14 22:42 ` Eric Paris
2008-11-15 1:56 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-02-06 7:28 Stephen Rothwell
2009-02-06 8:14 ` James Morris
2009-08-07 4:59 Stephen Rothwell
2009-08-10 14:07 ` Eric Paris
2009-08-10 23:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-03 5:51 Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-07 10:38 Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-07 13:40 Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-07 13:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-08 0:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-08 3:22 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1226498706.3353.11.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox