> On Sep 4, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:34:36AM +0000, Song Liu wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 4, 2019, at 11:43 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Implement permissions as stated in uapi/linux/capability.h >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> [...] >> >>> @@ -1648,11 +1648,11 @@ static int bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr *attr, union bpf_attr __user *uattr) >>> is_gpl = license_is_gpl_compatible(license); >>> >>> if (attr->insn_cnt == 0 || >>> - attr->insn_cnt > (capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS : BPF_MAXINSNS)) >>> + attr->insn_cnt > (capable_bpf() ? BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS : BPF_MAXINSNS)) >>> return -E2BIG; >>> if (type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER && >>> type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB && >>> - !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) >>> + !capable_bpf()) >>> return -EPERM; >> >> Do we allow load BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER and BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB >> without CAP_BPF? If so, maybe highlight in the header? > > of course. there is no change in behavior. > 'highlight in the header'? > you mean in commit log? > I think it's a bit weird to describe things in commit that patch > is _not_ changing vs things that patch does actually change. > This type of comment would be great in a doc though. > The doc will be coming separately in the follow up assuming > the whole thing lands. I'll remember to note that bit. I meant capability.h: + * CAP_BPF allows the following BPF operations: + * - Loading all types of BPF programs But CAP_BPF is not required to load all types of programs. On a second thought, I am not sure whether we will keep capability.h up to date with all features. So this is probably OK. Thanks, Song
