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>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH security-next v2 10/26] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:23:22 -0700
Message-Id: <20180920162338.21060-11-keescook@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180920162338.21060-1-keescook@chromium.org>
References: <20180920162338.21060-1-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 | 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