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  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]
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 16:00:41 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <>
To:     Casey Schaufler <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/3] Introduce CAP_BPF

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:45:36PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 5/8/2020 2:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov <>
> >
> > v4->v5:
> >
> > Split BPF operations that are allowed under CAP_SYS_ADMIN into combination of
> > CAP_BPF, CAP_PERFMON, CAP_NET_ADMIN and keep some of them under CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> >
> > The user process has to have
> > - CAP_BPF and CAP_PERFMON to load tracing programs.
> > - CAP_BPF and CAP_NET_ADMIN to load networking programs.
> > (or CAP_SYS_ADMIN for backward compatibility).
> Is there a case where CAP_BPF is useful in the absence of other capabilities?
> I generally object to new capabilities in cases where existing capabilities
> are already required.

You mean beyond what is written about CAP_BPF in include/uapi/linux/capability.h in patch 1?
There are prog types that are neither tracing nor networking.
Like LIRC2 and cgroup-device are not, but they were put under CAP_SYS_ADMIN + CAP_NET_ADMIN
because there was no CAP_BPF. This patch keeps them under CAP_BPF + CAP_NET_ADMIN for now.
May be that can be relaxed later. For sure future prog types won't have to deal with
such binary decision.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists