From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 05:50:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [LTP] question about the EPERM error of LTP bpf test In-Reply-To: <008a677b-644d-615f-6c4f-0961af928700@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <008a677b-644d-615f-6c4f-0961af928700@cn.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <1706711917.10302442.1572864628434.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it ----- Original Message ----- > Hi All > > Now, I test bpf_prog02 and bpf_prog03 in my system(4.18.0-107.el8.x86_64). > > #./bpf_prog03 > tst_buffers.c:55: INFO: Test is using guarded buffers > tst_test.c:1137: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s > bpf_common.h:18: INFO: Raising RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to 262143 > tst_capability.c:29: INFO: Dropping CAP_SYS_ADMIN(21) > bpf_common.h:37: CONF: bpf() requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN on this system: EPERM (1) > # > > Jan Stancek has added rlimit_bump_memlock function to avoid EPERM errno, > but I still can meet this problem every time even though I have increased > BPF_MEMLOCK_ADD limit. This is likely not related to rlimit. Can you check if unprivileged bpf is allowed: cat /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled > > How can I run the two cases normally? Also, this error log(requires > CAP_SYS_ADMIN on this system: EPERM > ) makes me confused in this situation(because case drops CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but > log reports need CAP_SYS_ADMIN) > and I think we may change it into "require CAP_SYS_ADMIN or max locked memory > limit is too low". > > Or, can I keep CAP_SYS_ADMIN cap in bpf_prog02/[3]? > > > Thanks > Yang Xu > > > > >