Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKLM <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 18/18] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures
Date:   Sat, 15 Sep 2018 17:30:59 -0700
Message-Id: <20180916003059.1046-19-keescook@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180916003059.1046-1-keescook@chromium.org>
References: <20180916003059.1046-1-keescook@chromium.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 security/security.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 3b84b7eeb08c..a7796e522f72 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -203,11 +203,15 @@ static void __init maybe_enable_lsm(struct lsm_info *lsm)
 
 	/* If selected, initialize the LSM. */
 	if (enabled) {
+		int ret;
+
 		if (lsm->type == LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE) {
 			exclusive = lsm;
 			init_debug("exclusive: %s\n", exclusive->name);
 		}
-		lsm->init();
+
+		ret = lsm->init();
+		WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret);
 	}
 }
 
-- 
2.17.1