On 09/24/2018 05:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> This provides a place for ordered LSMs to be initialized, separate from
> the "major" LSMs. This is mainly a copy/paste from major_lsm_init() to
> ordered_lsm_init(), but it will change drastically in later patches.
>
> What is not obvious in the patch is that this change moves the integrity
> LSM from major_lsm_init() into ordered_lsm_init(), since it is not marked
> with the LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR. As it is the only LSM in the "ordered"
> list, there is no reordering yet created.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
I know its already being done, but I don't like splitting the init
order
Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johan...@canonical.com>
> ---
> security/security.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 1f055936a746..a886a978214a 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -52,12 +52,30 @@ static bool debug __initdata;
> pr_info(__VA_ARGS__); \
> } while (0)
>
> +static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void)
> +{
> + struct lsm_info *lsm;
> + int ret;
> +
> + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) {
> + if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) != 0)
> + continue;
> +
> + init_debug("initializing %s\n", lsm->name);
> + ret = lsm->init();
> + WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void __init major_lsm_init(void)
> {
> struct lsm_info *lsm;
> int ret;
>
> for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) {
> + if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0)
> + continue;
> +
> init_debug("initializing %s\n", lsm->name);
> ret = lsm->init();
> WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret);
> @@ -87,6 +105,9 @@ int __init security_init(void)
> yama_add_hooks();
> loadpin_add_hooks();
>
> + /* Load LSMs in specified order. */
> + ordered_lsm_init();
> +
> /*
> * Load all the remaining security modules.
> */
>
