From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:20:32 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20181002005505.6112-11-keescook@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181002005505.6112-11-keescook@chromium.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kees Cook Cc: Casey Schaufler , John Johansen , Tetsuo Handa , Paul Moore , Stephen Smalley , "Schaufler, Casey" , LSM , Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org 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 > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler > Reviewed-by: John Johansen > --- > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:35230 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727040AbeJCEGC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2018 00:06:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:20:32 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures In-Reply-To: <20181002005505.6112-11-keescook@chromium.org> Message-ID: References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20181002005505.6112-11-keescook@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Kees Cook Cc: Casey Schaufler , John Johansen , Tetsuo Handa , Paul Moore , Stephen Smalley , "Schaufler, Casey" , LSM , Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20181002212032.o9ZGQjJS8zMCKvpqZSl0FkiRSDHVxqJ6-jcktFR31YI@z> 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 > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler > Reviewed-by: John Johansen > --- > 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