Message-ID: <d99fc78005d8a245449dd6ca0158cf9e2a897465.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: Fix undefined arch_ima_get_secureboot() and co
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Joey Lee <jlee@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:31:21 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20211213161145.3447-1-tiwai@suse.de>
References: <20211213161145.3447-1-tiwai@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Takashi,

On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 17:11 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Currently arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_get_ima_policy() are
> defined only when CONFIG_IMA is set, and this makes the code calling
> those functions without CONFIG_IMA failing.  Although there is no such
> in-tree users, but the out-of-tree users already hit it.
> 
> Move the declaration and the dummy definition of those functions
> outside ifdef-CONFIG_IMA block for fixing the undefined symbols.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>

Before lockdown was upstreamed, we made sure that IMA and lockdown
could co-exist.  This patch makes the stub functions available even
when IMA is not configured.  Do the remaining downstream patches
require IMA to be disabled or can IMA co-exist?

thanks,

Mimi