[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1561640534.4101.124.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:02:14 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 26 (security/integrity/ima/)
[Cc'ing David Howells]
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 11:35 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 6/26/19 6:16 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The sparc64 builds are broken in this tree, sorry.
> >
> > Changes since 20190625:
> >
>
> on x86_64:
>
> 11 warnings like this one (in a randconfig build):
>
> CC security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o
> In file included from ../security/integrity/ima/ima.h:25:0,
> from ../security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:26:
> ../security/integrity/ima/../integrity.h:170:18: warning: ‘struct key_acl’ declared inside parameter list [enabled by default]
> struct key_acl *acl)
> ^
> ../security/integrity/ima/../integrity.h:170:18: warning: its scope is only this definition or declaration, which is probably not what you want [enabled by default]
David, CONFIG_INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE is dependent on KEYS being enabled,
but the stub functions are not. There's now a dependency on
key_acl().
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists