public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
To: Joerg Vehlow <lkml@jv-coder.de>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 4/4] bpf_prog05: Drop CAP_BPF and check if ptr arithmetic is allowed
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:11:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sftmz8ef.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d68d8f72-fdc9-3a2e-991d-682d8274070f@jv-coder.de>

Hello Joerg,

> I did some more digging and bisecting. First I bisected the mainline
> kernel and found, that the commit 2c78ee898 ("bpf: Implement CAP_BPF")
> makes the check run successful. This is only in linux >= 5.8.
> But my 5.4 ubuntu kernel also successfully ran the check, so I also
> bisected ubuntu sources [1] and found this commit to be the fix here:
> 2fa9ab45c ("bpf: No need to simulate speculative domain for immediates")
> This commit is also in the mainline kernel, but only in >= 5.13.

Uffff, interesting, some of the things mentioned in this commit seem
familiar. I did start working on other BPF reproducers, but gave up for
the time being.

>
> I guess the check you implemented now disables the test for a lot of
> kernels, that do not have a patch like this... I will stop here and just
> accept, that the test is not running successfully in my case. But still
> wanted to share this information.

Thanks, yes this could be useful.

>
> Joerg
>
>
> [1]
> https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/focal/commit/?id=2fa9ab45c53e8b104ba8f7d3a953131cc818fcc0


-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

      reply	other threads:[~2022-01-17 15:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-27  5:13 [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] bpf: Print full verification log Richard Palethorpe
2021-08-27  5:13 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/3] bpf: Mention CAP_BPF in required privs and add fallback definition Richard Palethorpe
2021-08-27  5:13 ` [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] bpf_prog05: Drop CAP_BPF and check if ptr arithmetic is allowed Richard Palethorpe
2021-08-30 15:23 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] bpf: Print full verification log Cyril Hrubis
2021-08-31  9:10   ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/4] API: Add tst_printf to avoid specifying the output FD in tests Richard Palethorpe
2021-08-31  9:10     ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/4] bpf: Print full verification log Richard Palethorpe
2021-08-31  9:51       ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-08-31  9:10     ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/4] bpf: Mention CAP_BPF in required privs and add fallback definition Richard Palethorpe
2021-08-31  9:10     ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 4/4] bpf_prog05: Drop CAP_BPF and check if ptr arithmetic is allowed Richard Palethorpe
2022-01-11 10:42       ` Joerg Vehlow
2022-01-11 14:36         ` Richard Palethorpe
2022-01-12  6:55           ` Joerg Vehlow
2022-01-13  7:48             ` Richard Palethorpe
2022-01-14  6:51               ` Joerg Vehlow
2022-01-17 15:11                 ` Richard Palethorpe [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87sftmz8ef.fsf@suse.de \
    --to=rpalethorpe@suse.de \
    --cc=lkml@jv-coder.de \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox