Re: [PATCH security-next v3 10/29] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Date: 2018-10-01 21:15:02
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-doc, lkml
On 09/24/2018 05:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
LSM initialization failures have traditionally been ignored. We should at least WARN when something goes wrong. Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
about time Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- 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); } }