netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: skip unnecessary capability check

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: <CAKD1Yr2SLoQ_HzYouchVH6J6TU2JYf_wAOh5DawUARW4W_O82w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:37:44 +0000
From:   Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
To:     Chenbo Feng <chenbofeng.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: skip unnecessary capability check

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Chenbo Feng
<chenbofeng.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> -       if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled)
> +       if (sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>                 return -EPERM;
>

Acked-by: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>

Should this be targeted to bpf (or even -stable) instead of bpf-next?