Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: implement CAP_BPF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/30/19 8:19 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 29/08/2019 à 19:30, Alexei Starovoitov a écrit :
> [snip]
>> These are the links that showing that k8 can delegates caps.
>> Are you saying that you know of folks who specifically
>> delegate cap_sys_admin and cap_net_admin _only_ to a container to run bpf in there?
>>
> Yes, we need cap_sys_admin only to load bpf:
> tc filter add dev eth0 ingress matchall action bpf obj ./tc_test_kern.o sec test
> 
> I'm not sure to understand why cap_net_admin is not enough to run the previous
> command (ie why load is forbidden).

because bpf syscall prog_load command requires cap_sys_admin in
the current implementation.

> I want to avoid sys_admin, thus cap_bpf will be ok. But we need to manage the
> backward compatibility.

re: backward compatibility...
do you know of any case where task is running under userid=nobody
with cap_sys_admin and cap_net_admin in order to do bpf ?

If not then what is the concern about compatibility?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux