Re: [PATCH -next] security/audit/ima: fix build error

[Mimi Zohar]

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:54 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:30:24 -0500 Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/10/2009 05:40:50 PM:
> > 
> > > Hi Randy,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:55:12 -0800 Randy Dunlap 
> > <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?

The patch looks good to me, but looking at the code,
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git;a=blob_plain;f=mm/shmem.c;hb=168b70b72a78f289046823d810c29376e211a6de
it doesn't look like the previous patch was applied.

> 
> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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 <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>  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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/