netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/2] samples/bpf: sample application for eBPF load and socket creation split

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: <CAADnVQKorj773WzJLKvLxAXiKNdqr3dTL_A5GLns9FBrZQ5rxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:50:36 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     mariusz.dudek@...il.com
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mariusz Dudek <mariuszx.dudek@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/2] samples/bpf: sample application for eBPF
 load and socket creation split

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:39 AM <mariusz.dudek@...il.com> wrote:
>  int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  {
> +       struct __user_cap_header_struct hdr = { _LINUX_CAPABILITY_VERSION_3, 0 };
> +       struct __user_cap_data_struct data[2] = { { 0 } };
>         struct rlimit r = {RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY};
>         bool rx = false, tx = false;
>         struct xsk_umem_info *umem;
>         struct bpf_object *obj;
> +       int xsks_map_fd = 0;
>         pthread_t pt;
>         int i, ret;
>         void *bufs;
>
>         parse_command_line(argc, argv);
>
> -       if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) {
> -               fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) \"%s\"\n",
> -                       strerror(errno));
> -               exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> +       if (opt_reduced_cap) {
> +               if (capget(&hdr, data)  < 0)
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "Error getting capabilities\n");
> +
> +               data->effective &= CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_NET_RAW);
> +               data->permitted &= CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_NET_RAW);
> +
> +               if (capset(&hdr, data) < 0)
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "Setting capabilities failed\n");
> +
> +               if (capget(&hdr, data)  < 0) {
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "Error getting capabilities\n");
> +               } else {
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "Capabilities EFF %x Caps INH %x Caps Per %x\n",
> +                               data[0].effective, data[0].inheritable, data[0].permitted);
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "Capabilities EFF %x Caps INH %x Caps Per %x\n",
> +                               data[1].effective, data[1].inheritable, data[1].permitted);
> +               }
> +       } else {
> +               if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) {
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) \"%s\"\n",
> +                               strerror(errno));
> +                       exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> +               }

Due to this hunk the patch had an unpleasant conflict with Roman's set
and I had to drop this set from bpf-next.
Please rebase and resend.

But it made me look into this change...why did you make rlimit conditional here?
That doesn't look right.