[PATCH bpf-next] bpf: use bpf_capable() instead of CAP_SYS_ADMIN for blinding decision

[Yauheni Kaliuta <ykaliuta@redhat.com>]

The full CAP_SYS_ADMIN requirement for blining looks too strict
nowadays. These days given unpriv eBPF is disabled by default, the
main users for constant blinding coming from unpriv in particular
via cBPF -> eBPF migration (e.g. old-style socket filters).

Discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220831090655.156434-1-ykaliuta@redhat.com/

Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <ykaliuta@redhat.com>
---
 Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/net.rst | 3 +++
 include/linux/filter.h                   | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/net.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/net.rst
index 805f2281e000..ff1e5b5acd28 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/net.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/net.rst
@@ -101,6 +101,9 @@ Values:
 	- 1 - enable JIT hardening for unprivileged users only
 	- 2 - enable JIT hardening for all users
 
+where "privileged user" in this context means a process having
+CAP_BPF or CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the root user name space.
+
 bpf_jit_kallsyms
 ----------------
 
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index 527ae1d64e27..75335432fcbc 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -1099,7 +1099,7 @@ 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