Hi, Arnaldo,
This looks a bit surprising because that 2 lines should have already been
in the patch (lsm-secpeer) that this patch (lsm-secpeer-unix) depends on.
See below:
thanks,
Catherine
diff -puN security/dummy.c~lsm-secpeer security/dummy.c
--- linux-2.6.16-rc1/security/dummy.c~lsm-secpeer 2006-02-17
16:20:56.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc1-cxzhang/security/dummy.c 2006-02-03
14:44:17.000000000 -0500
@@ -763,8 +763,14 @@ static int dummy_socket_sock_rcv_skb (st
return 0;
}
-static int dummy_socket_getpeersec(struct socket *sock, char __user
*optval,
- int __user *optlen, unsigned len)
+static int dummy_socket_getpeersec_stream(struct socket *sock, char
__user *optval,
+ int __user *optlen, unsigned
len)
+{
+ return -ENOPROTOOPT;
+}
+
+static int dummy_socket_getpeersec_dgram(struct sk_buff *skb, char
**secdata,
+ u32 *seclen)
{
return -ENOPROTOOPT;
}
@@ -1002,7 +1008,8 @@ void security_fixup_ops (struct security
set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, socket_getsockopt);
set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, socket_shutdown);
set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, socket_sock_rcv_skb);
- set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, socket_getpeersec);
+ set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, socket_getpeersec_stream);
+ set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, socket_getpeersec_dgram);
set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, sk_alloc_security);
set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, sk_free_security);
set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, sk_getsid);
diff -puN net/core/sock.c~lsm-secpeer net/core/sock.c
--- linux-2.6.16-rc1/net/core/sock.c~lsm-secpeer 2006-02-01
18:31:21.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc1-cxzhang/net/core/sock.c 2006-02-01
18:31:33.000000000 -0500
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ int sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock,
break;
case SO_PEERSEC:
- return security_socket_getpeersec(sock, optval,
optlen, len);
+ return security_socket_getpeersec_stream(sock,
optval, optlen, len);
default:
return(-ENOPROTOOPT);
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/10/2006 02:16:44 PM:
> On 3/10/06, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/10/06, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 3/10/06, Xiaolan Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I will work on a fix.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > More breakage, this time with "make allmodconfig", please fix.
> >
> > - Arnaldo
> >
> > /pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/net-2.6.17/security/dummy.c: In
> > function 'security_fixup_ops':
> > /pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/net-2.6.17/security/dummy.c:1011:
> > error: 'struct security_operations' has no member named
> > 'socket_getpeersec'
> > /pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/net-2.6.17/security/dummy.c:1011:
> > error: 'struct security_operations' has no member named
> > 'socket_getpeersec'
> > /pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/net-2.6.17/security/dummy.c:1011:
> > error: 'dummy_socket_getpeersec' undeclared (first use in this
> > function)
> > /pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/net-2.6.17/security/dummy.c:1011:
> > error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> > /pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/net-2.6.17/security/dummy.c:1011:
> > error: for each function it appears in.)
>
> Is the attached patch enough? If so I can put into my net-2.6.17 tree
and push
> to DaveM in half an hour or so after I check that there is no more
> build breakage
> in netland.
>
> - Arnaldo
> [attachment "c.patch" deleted by Xiaolan Zhang/Watson/IBM]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
