Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210629135050.GA1373@raspberrypi> <fe6c853842425e675024731525e0f244da368e8e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe6c853842425e675024731525e0f244da368e8e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Austin Kim <austindh.kim@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 07:40:50 +0900
Message-ID: <CADLLry5D9T_icTSGOggb=3vJqYq9Qvq-WEhmfgJMCSGuPV0AAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IMA: remove -Wmissing-prototypes warning
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?6rmA64+Z7ZiE?= <austin.kim@lge.com>,
        Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

2021=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 29=EC=9D=BC (=ED=99=94) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 11:30, =
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> [Cc: Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com>]
>
> Hi Austin,
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 14:50 +0100, Austin Kim wrote:
> > From: Austin Kim <austin.kim@lge.com>
> >
> > With W=3D1 build, the compiler throws warning message as below:
> >
> >    security/integrity/ima/ima_mok.c:24:12: warning:
> >    no previous prototype for =E2=80=98ima_mok_init=E2=80=99 [-Wmissing-=
prototypes]
> >        __init int ima_mok_init(void)
> >
> > Silence the warning by adding static keyword to ima_mok_init().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Austin Kim <austin.kim@lge.com>
> > ---
> >  security/integrity/ima/ima_mok.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_mok.c b/security/integrity/ima/=
ima_mok.c
> > index 1e5c01916173..95cc31525c57 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_mok.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_mok.c
> > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ struct key *ima_blacklist_keyring;
> >  /*
> >   * Allocate the IMA blacklist keyring
> >   */
> > -__init int ima_mok_init(void)
> > +static __init int ima_mok_init(void)
> >  {
> >       struct key_restriction *restriction;
> >
>
> Thank you for the patch, which does fix the warning.   The .ima_mok
> keyring was removed a while ago.  With all the recent work on the
> system blacklist, I'm wondering if anyone is still using the IMA
> blacklist keyring or whether it should be removed as well.

Oh! Thanks for information.

>
> thanks,
>
> Mimi
>