On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:13:23PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The blacklist_init() function calls panic() for memory allocation > errors. This change documents the reason why we don't return -ENODEV. > > Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [1] > Requested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> [1] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YjeW2r6Wv55Du0bJ@xxxxxx [1] > Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220322111323.542184-2-mic@xxxxxxxxxxx > --- > > Changes since v1: > * Fix commit subject spelling spotted by David Woodhouse. > * Reword one sentence as suggested by Paul Moore. > * Add Reviewed-by Paul Moore. > * Add Reviewed-by Jarkko Sakkinen. > --- > certs/blacklist.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/certs/blacklist.c b/certs/blacklist.c > index 486ce0dd8e9c..25094ea73600 100644 > --- a/certs/blacklist.c > +++ b/certs/blacklist.c > @@ -307,6 +307,15 @@ static int restrict_link_for_blacklist(struct key *dest_keyring, > > /* > * Initialise the blacklist > + * > + * The blacklist_init() function is registered as an initcall via > + * device_initcall(). As a result if the blacklist_init() function fails for > + * any reason the kernel continues to execute. While cleanly returning -ENODEV > + * could be acceptable for some non-critical kernel parts, if the blacklist > + * keyring fails to load it defeats the certificate/key based deny list for > + * signed modules. If a critical piece of security functionality that users > + * expect to be present fails to initialize, panic()ing is likely the right > + * thing to do. > */ > static int __init blacklist_init(void) > { > -- > 2.35.1 > Thank you, I'll put this into my "queue" folder and apply as soon I have bandwidth. BR, Jarkko
