Re: [RFC PATCH v2] bpf: use bpf_capable() instead of CAP_SYS_ADMIN for blinding decision

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 06:24:14PM +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote:
> The capability check can cause SELinux denial.
> 
> For example, in ptp4l, setsockopt() with the SO_ATTACH_FILTER option
> raises sk_attach_filter() to run a bpf program. SELinux hooks into
> capable() calls and performs an additional check if the task's
> SELinux domain has permission to "use" the given capability. ptp4l_t
> already has CAP_BPF granted by SELinux, so if the function used
> bpf_capable() as most BPF code does, there would be no change needed
> in selinux-policy.

The selinux mentions probably aren't really necessary.  The more
concise way to say it is that bpf_jit_blinding_enabled() should
be permitted with CAP_BPF, that full CAP_SYS_ADMIN is not needed.
(Assuming that that is the case)

> Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <ykaliuta@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> v2: put the reasoning in the commit message
> 
> ---
>  include/linux/filter.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index a5f21dc3c432..3de96b1a736b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ static inline bool bpf_jit_blinding_enabled(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>  		return false;
>  	if (!bpf_jit_harden)
>  		return false;
> -	if (bpf_jit_harden == 1 && capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> +	if (bpf_jit_harden == 1 && bpf_capable())
>  		return false;
>  
>  	return true;
> -- 
> 2.34.1