netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: return errno -ENOMEM when exceeding RLIMIT

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]

Message-ID: <20170221080609.GA42330@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:06:11 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: return errno -ENOMEM when exceeding
 RLIMIT_MEMLOCK

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:25:58PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:57:34 +0100
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 02/20/2017 04:35 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > It is confusing users of samples/bpf that exceeding the resource
> > > limits for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK result in an "Operation not permitted"
> > > message.  This is due to bpf limits check return -EPERM.
> > >
> > > Instead return -ENOMEM, like most other users of this API.
> > >
> > > Fixes: aaac3ba95e4c ("bpf: charge user for creation of BPF maps and programs")
> > > Fixes: 6c9059817432 ("bpf: pre-allocate hash map elements")
> > > Fixes: 5ccb071e97fb ("bpf: fix overflow in prog accounting")  
> > 
> > Btw, last one just moves the helper so fixes doesn't really apply
> > there, but apart from that this is already uapi exposed behavior
> > like this for ~1.5yrs, so unfortunately too late to change now. I
> > think the original intention (arguably confusing in this context)
> > was that user doesn't have (rlimit) permission to allocate this
> > resource.
> 
> This is obviously confusing end-users, thus it should be fixed IMHO.

I don't think it's confusing and I think EPERM makes
the most sense as return code in such situation.
There is also code in iovisor/bcc that specifically looking
for EPERM to adjust ulimit.
May be it's not documented properly, but that's different story.