From 3f6caaf5ff33073ca1a3a0b82edacab3c57c38f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kees Cook Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:18:26 -0700 Subject: LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures LSM initialization failures have traditionally been ignored. We should at least WARN when something goes wrong. Signed-off-by: Kees Cook Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler Reviewed-by: John Johansen Signed-off-by: James Morris --- security/security.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'security') 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); } } -- cgit v1.2.3-58-ga151