From 3f6caaf5ff33073ca1a3a0b82edacab3c57c38f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
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 <keescook@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: James Morris <james.morris@microsoft.com>
---
 security/security.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'security/security.c')

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 v1.2.3-59-g8ed1b