lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH security-next v5 10/30] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures
Date
LSM initialization failures have traditionally been ignored. We should
at least WARN when something goes wrong.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
---
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);
}
}

--
2.17.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-11 02:20    [W:0.228 / U:22.452 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site