netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: implement CAP

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: <20190905013245.wguhhcxvxt5rnc6h@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 18:32:46 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: implement CAP_BPF

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:34:36AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Sep 4, 2019, at 11:43 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Implement permissions as stated in uapi/linux/capability.h
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -1648,11 +1648,11 @@ static int bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr *attr, union bpf_attr __user *uattr)
> > 	is_gpl = license_is_gpl_compatible(license);
> > 
> > 	if (attr->insn_cnt == 0 ||
> > -	    attr->insn_cnt > (capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS : BPF_MAXINSNS))
> > +	    attr->insn_cnt > (capable_bpf() ? BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS : BPF_MAXINSNS))
> > 		return -E2BIG;
> > 	if (type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER &&
> > 	    type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB &&
> > -	    !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > +	    !capable_bpf())
> > 		return -EPERM;
> 
> Do we allow load BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER and BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB
> without CAP_BPF? If so, maybe highlight in the header?

of course. there is no change in behavior.
'highlight in the header'?
you mean in commit log?
I think it's a bit weird to describe things in commit that patch
is _not_ changing vs things that patch does actually change.
This type of comment would be great in a doc though.
The doc will be coming separately in the follow up assuming
the whole thing lands. I'll remember to note that bit.