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>
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 395f804..2055af9 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);
}
}