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?
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
