Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: don't require CAP_SYS_ADMIN for getting NEXT_ID

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

 



On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:23 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 3:55 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Getting ID of map/prog/btf/link doesn't give any access to underlying
> > BPF objects, so there is no point in requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for these
> > commands.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to allow unpriv to figure out
> all prog/map/btf/link IDs.
> Since unpriv is typically disabled it's not a security issue,
> but rather a concern over abuse of IDR logic and potential
> for exploits in *get_next_id() code.
> At least CAP_BPF is needed.

Ok, sounds good. I was just trying to minimize the number of commands
that would need token_fd.

BPF_MAP_FREEZE is the one I care about the most, if that one looks
good, should we land that single patch?





[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