[PATCH security-next v3 10/29] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures

[Kees Cook]

LSM initialization failures have traditionally been ignored. We should
at least WARN when something goes wrong.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
 security/security.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index ee49b921d750..1f055936a746 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -55,10 +55,12 @@ static bool debug __initdata;
 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