linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:20:32 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization
 failures

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 <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.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);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> 

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>