[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACAyw99ZfALrTRYKOTifWXCRFS9sUOhONbyEyWjTBdzFE4fpQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:35:03 +0100
From: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
To: nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] bpf: export bpf_jit_current
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 17:29, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
>
> Le 12/10/2021 à 15:59, Lorenz Bauer a écrit :
> > Expose bpf_jit_current as a read only value via sysctl.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
> > ---
>
> [snip]
>
> > + {
> > + .procname = "bpf_jit_current",
> > + .data = &bpf_jit_current,
> > + .maxlen = sizeof(long),
> > + .mode = 0400,
> Why not 0444 ?
This mirrors what the other BPF related sysctls do, which only allow
access from root with CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I'd prefer 0444 as well, but
Daniel explicitly locked down these sysctls in
2e4a30983b0f9b19b59e38bbf7427d7fdd480d98.
Lorenz
--
Lorenz Bauer | Systems Engineer
6th Floor, County Hall/The Riverside Building, SE1 7PB, UK
www.cloudflare.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists