Re: Error: bug: failed to retrieve CAP_BPF status: Invalid argument

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

 



On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 23:26, Vincent Li <vincent.mc.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:18 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 18:46, Vincent Li <vincent.mc.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I compile and run kernel 5.18.0 in Centos 8 from bpf-next in my dev
> > > machine, I also compiled bpftool from bpf-next on same machine, when
> > > run bpftool on same machine, I got :
> > >
> > > ./bpftool feature probe
> > >
> > > Error: bug: failed to retrieve CAP_BPF status: Invalid argument
> > >
> > > where bpftool to retrieve CAP_BPF ? from running kernel or from somewhere else?
> >
> > Yes, bpftool calls cap_get_proc() to get the capabilities of the
> > current process. From what I understand of your output, it looks like
> > capget() returns CAP_BPF: I believe the "0x1c0" value at the end is
> > (1<<(CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE-32)) + (1<<(CAP_BPF-32)) +
> > (1<<(CAP_PERFMON-32)). You could probably check this with a more
> > recent version of strace.
> >
> > Then assuming you do retrieve CAP_BPF from capget(), I don't know why
> > cap_get_flag() in bpftool fails to retrieve the capability state. It
> > would be worth running bpftool in GDB to check what happens. The check
> > in libcap is here [0] but I don't see where we would fail to provide
> > valid arguments. Just in case, could you please let me know what
> > version of libcap you're using when compiling bpftool?
>
> I think I installed libcap through centos distro
>
> [root@centos-dev ~]# rpm -qi libcap.x86_64
>
> Name        : libcap
>
> Version     : 2.26

So we investigated this on Slack. The issue is related to libcap (and
to how libcap is built on CentOS); it is fixed in libcap 2.30 and
older.

For the record, this is the commit that fixed it:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/libcap/libcap.git/commit/?id=f1f62a748d7c67361e91e32d26abafbfb03eeee4

Before this, cap_get_flag() would compare its argument "value" (in our
case, CAP_BPF == 39) with __CAP_BITS. This __CAP_BITS constant is
defined in libcap/cap_names.h, generated by libcap/_makenames.c from
the list in libcap/cap_names.list.h. The latter header file is itself
generated in libcap/Makefile from the UAPI header at
$(KERNEL_HEADERS)/linux/capability.h, which defaults to the local
libcap/include/uapi/linux/capability.h.

On your CentOS, the libcap version may have been compiled without
setting KERNEL_HEADERS to make it point to the correct system UAPI
header (or the header could be too old, but looking at it, it seems
that it does have CAP_BPF), in which case it defaulted to libcap's
version of the header, which in 2.26 stops at CAP_AUDIT (37). In that
case, __CAP_BITS is worth 37 and is lower than CAP_BPF, the check in
cap_get_flag() fails and we get -EINVAL.

The commit referenced above changed the comparison for libcap 2.30+ to
compare "value" with __CAP_MAXBITS == 64 instead, which works
correctly.

Thanks for the report and the shared debug session!
Quentin



[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