Re: linux-next: Tree for February 10 (security/audit/ima)

[Mimi Zohar]

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.

Mimi


--
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/