From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 (security/integrity/ima/) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:28:02 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20181214222802.GP11670@windriver.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181214202650.GO11670@windriver.com> [Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 (security/integrity/ima/)] On 14/12/2018 (Fri 15:26) Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 (security/integrity/ima/)] On 14/12/2018 (Fri 14:19) Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 08:25 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > on i386: > > > > > > CC security/integrity/ima/ima_main.o > > > ../security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c: In function 'ima_load_data': > > > ../security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:535:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'is_module_sig_enforced' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > sig_enforce = is_module_sig_enforced(); > > > ^ [...] > > Commit 4f83d5ea643a ("security: integrity: make ima_main explicitly > > non-modular") just removed module.h. > > Yes, unfortunately the security directory has additional confusion > because there is name space overlap between "module" as used in Linux > Security Module, and "module" as in "insmod foo.ko". The ima_main > is not modular, but it does use modular infrastructure to load others. > > Fortunately this was the final commit in the series, so it can be > removed or reverted as per maintainer's choice. In the meantime, I'll > look into why my "allyesconfig" build testing didn't pick up on this, > so I can close that testing gap. I've confirmed that most .config result in an implicit header presence by looking at the CPP output. Details below. James, if your input branch to linux-next is strictly fast forward, here is a partial revert to fix up what Randy found that you can apply. Thanks for the report, and again - sorry for not detecting this myself. Paul. -- From 31081a8b46e84d64e2fbda8d0d82ba26d56cc468 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:48:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] security: integrity: partial revert of make ima_main explicitly non-modular In commit 4f83d5ea643a ("security: integrity: make ima_main explicitly non-modular") I'd removed <linux/module.h> after assuming that the function is_module_sig_enforced() was an LSM function and not a core kernel module function. Unfortunately the typical .config selections used in build testing provide an implicit <linux/module.h> presence, and so normal/typical build testing did not immediately reveal my incorrect assumption. Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com> Cc: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> Cc: linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c index adaf96932237..616a88f95b92 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt -#include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/file.h> #include <linux/binfmts.h> #include <linux/mount.h> -- 2.7.4
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 (security/integrity/ima/) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:28:02 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20181214222802.GP11670@windriver.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181214202650.GO11670@windriver.com> [Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 (security/integrity/ima/)] On 14/12/2018 (Fri 15:26) Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 (security/integrity/ima/)] On 14/12/2018 (Fri 14:19) Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 08:25 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > on i386: > > > > > > CC security/integrity/ima/ima_main.o > > > ../security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c: In function 'ima_load_data': > > > ../security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:535:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'is_module_sig_enforced' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > sig_enforce = is_module_sig_enforced(); > > > ^ [...] > > Commit 4f83d5ea643a ("security: integrity: make ima_main explicitly > > non-modular") just removed module.h. > > Yes, unfortunately the security directory has additional confusion > because there is name space overlap between "module" as used in Linux > Security Module, and "module" as in "insmod foo.ko". The ima_main > is not modular, but it does use modular infrastructure to load others. > > Fortunately this was the final commit in the series, so it can be > removed or reverted as per maintainer's choice. In the meantime, I'll > look into why my "allyesconfig" build testing didn't pick up on this, > so I can close that testing gap. I've confirmed that most .config result in an implicit header presence by looking at the CPP output. Details below. James, if your input branch to linux-next is strictly fast forward, here is a partial revert to fix up what Randy found that you can apply. Thanks for the report, and again - sorry for not detecting this myself. Paul. -- >From 31081a8b46e84d64e2fbda8d0d82ba26d56cc468 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:48:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] security: integrity: partial revert of make ima_main explicitly non-modular In commit 4f83d5ea643a ("security: integrity: make ima_main explicitly non-modular") I'd removed <linux/module.h> after assuming that the function is_module_sig_enforced() was an LSM function and not a core kernel module function. Unfortunately the typical .config selections used in build testing provide an implicit <linux/module.h> presence, and so normal/typical build testing did not immediately reveal my incorrect assumption. Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com> Cc: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> Cc: linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c index adaf96932237..616a88f95b92 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt -#include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/file.h> #include <linux/binfmts.h> #include <linux/mount.h> -- 2.7.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-14 22:28 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-12-14 7:18 linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 Stephen Rothwell 2018-12-14 16:25 ` linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 (security/integrity/ima/) Randy Dunlap 2018-12-14 19:19 ` Mimi Zohar 2018-12-14 20:26 ` Paul Gortmaker 2018-12-14 20:26 ` Paul Gortmaker 2018-12-14 22:28 ` Paul Gortmaker [this message] 2018-12-14 22:28 ` Paul Gortmaker 2018-12-20 18:00 ` James Morris 2018-12-15 15:51 ` linux-next: Tree for Dec 14 Guenter Roeck
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=20181214222802.GP11670@windriver.com \ --to=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \ --cc=jmorris@namei.org \ --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \ --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \ --cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.