On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Chenbo Feng <chenbofeng.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled) > + if (sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > return -EPERM; >
Acked-by: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> Should this be targeted to bpf (or even -stable) instead of bpf-next?
