[PATCH v1 1/1] certs: Explain the rational to call panic()

["Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>]

From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@linux.microsoft.com>

The blacklist_init() function calls panic() for memory allocation
errors.  This change documents the reason why we don't return -ENODEV.

Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> [1]
Requested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YjeW2r6Wv55Du0bJ@iki.fi [1]
Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220321174548.510516-2-mic@digikod.net
---
 certs/blacklist.c | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/certs/blacklist.c b/certs/blacklist.c
index 486ce0dd8e9c..ac26bcf9b9a5 100644
--- a/certs/blacklist.c
+++ b/certs/blacklist.c
@@ -307,6 +307,14 @@ static int restrict_link_for_blacklist(struct key *dest_keyring,
 
 /*
  * Initialise the blacklist
+ *
+ * The blacklist_init() function is registered as an initcall via
+ * device_initcall().  As a result the functionality doesn't load and the
+ * kernel continues on executing.  While cleanly returning -ENODEV could be
+ * acceptable for some non-critical kernel parts, if the blacklist keyring
+ * fails to load it defeats the certificate/key based deny list for signed
+ * modules.  If a critical piece of security functionality that users expect to
+ * be present fails to initialize, panic()ing is likely the right thing to do.
  */
 static int __init blacklist_init(void)
 {
-- 
2.35.1