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>

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions

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);
         }
 }