Re: [PATCH] security: Don't yet account for IMA in LSM_CONFIG_COUNT calculation

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:36 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:59 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:12 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 10:48 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Oct 26, 2023 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since IMA is not yet an LSM, don't account for it in the LSM_CONFIG_COUNT
> > > > > calculation, used to limit how many LSMs can invoke security_add_hooks().
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  security/security.c | 1 -
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > Merged into lsm/dev-staging, thanks!
> > >
> > > Welcome!
> > >
> > > Could you please also rebase lsm/dev-staging, to move ab3888c7198d
> > > ("LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls") after f7875966dc0c
> > > ("tools headers UAPI: Sync files changed by new fchmodat2 and
> > > map_shadow_stack syscalls with the kernel sources")?
> >
> > Let me look into that, as long as it doesn't blow up the stuff in
> > lsm/dev (I don't think it would), I'll go ahead and rebase to v6.6-rc4
> > which should resolve the syscall numbering conflict.
> >
> > FWIW, I also hit the same problem with my kernel-secnext builds, if
> > you're using those RPMs you'll find it's already resolved there.
>
> That wasn't very messy so I've rebased lsm/dev-staging to v6.6-rc4 and
> regenerated lsm/next.  If you notice any problems please let me know.

Now merged into lsm/dev, thanks Roberto!

-- 
paul-moore.com