> On Sep 4, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:34:36AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2019, at 11:43 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Implement permissions as stated in uapi/linux/capability.h
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> @@ -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
