Re: [PATCH security-next v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures
From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Date: 2018-10-02 21:20:45
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-doc, lkml
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
LSM initialization failures have traditionally been ignored. We should at least WARN when something goes wrong.
I guess we could have a boot param which specifies what to do if any LSM fails to init, as I think some folks will want to stop execution at that point. Thoughts?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> --- security/security.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c index 395f804f6a91..2055af907eba 100644 --- a/security/security.c +++ b/security/security.c@@ -55,10 +55,12 @@ static __initdata bool debug; 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); } }
-- James Morris [off-list ref]