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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52eadb61-32d0-cc32-d6d8-ff3cdf98f5c8@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:55:33 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        Chenbo Feng <chenbofeng.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: skip unnecessary capability check

On 03/20/2018 12:37 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> 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?

Ok, I've applied to bpf tree, thanks guys!