Thread (45 messages) 45 messages, 4 authors, 2018-09-21
STALE2810d
Revisions (3)
  1. v2 current
  2. v3 [diff vs current]
  3. v4 [diff vs current]

[PATCH security-next v2 10/26] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures

From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2018-09-20 16:23:56
Also in: linux-arch, linux-doc, lkml
Subsystem: security subsystem, the rest · Maintainers: Paul Moore, James Morris, "Serge E. Hallyn", Linus Torvalds

LSM initialization failures have traditionally been ignored. We should
at least WARN when something goes wrong.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
---
 security/security.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index ee49b921d750..1f055936a746 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -55,10 +55,12 @@ static bool debug __initdata;
 static void __init major_lsm_init(void)
 {
 	struct lsm_info *lsm;
+	int ret;
 
 	for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) {
 		init_debug("initializing %s\n", lsm->name);
-		lsm->init();
+		ret = lsm->init();
+		WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret);
 	}
 }
 
-- 
2.17.1
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help