From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randy Dunlap Subject: [PATCH -next] security/audit/ima: fix build error Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:54:14 -0800 Message-ID: <20090212095414.733dd248.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> References: <20090210194121.80256b72.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4991DBA0.1000008@oracle.com> <20090211094050.47c4828d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com ([148.87.113.125]:61854 "EHLO rgminet13.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751169AbZBLRyl (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:54:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mimi Zohar , akpm Cc: Stephen Rothwell , James Morris , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Mimi Zohar On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:30:24 -0500 Mimi Zohar wrote: > Stephen Rothwell wrote on 02/10/2009 05:40:50 PM: > > > Hi Randy, > > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:55:12 -0800 Randy Dunlap > 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? > > These are the IMA Kconfig rules: > CONFIG_IMA=y > CONFIG_IMA_MEASURE_PCR_IDX=10 > CONFIG_IMA_AUDIT=y > CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES=y > > CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES requires the audit subsystem. The default ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > measurement policy is not defined terms of the LSM extended > attributes, and thus is not required. This config still fails to build in linux-next-20090212. And the ^^^ statement above may be correct, but it's not enforced in Kconfig, so let's do that, OK? From: Randy Dunlap IMA_LSM_RULES requires AUDIT. This is automatic if SECURITY_SELINUX=y but not when SECURITY_SMACK=y (and SECURITY_SELINUX=n), so make the dependency explicit. This fixes the following build error: security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:111:error: implicit declaration of function 'security_audit_rule_match' security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:230:error: implicit declaration of function 'security_audit_rule_init' Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap --- security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- linux-next-20090212.orig/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig +++ linux-next-20090212/security/integrity/ima/Kconfig @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ config IMA_AUDIT config IMA_LSM_RULES bool - depends on IMA && (SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK) + depends on IMA && AUDIT && (SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK) default y help - Disabling this option will disregard LSM based policy rules + Disabling this option will disregard LSM based policy rules.