From 0962590e553331db2cc0aef2dc35c57f6300dbbe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 00:05:52 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] bpf: fix partial copy of map_ptr when dst is scalar ALU operations on pointers such as scalar_reg += map_value_ptr are handled in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Problem is however that map_ptr and range in the register state share a union, so transferring state through dst_reg->range = ptr_reg->range is just buggy as any new map_ptr in the dst_reg is then truncated (or null) for subsequent checks. Fix this by adding a raw member and use it for copying state over to dst_reg. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Edward Cree Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 3 +++ kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 10 ++++++---- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index 9e8056ec20fa..d93e89761a8b 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ struct bpf_reg_state { * PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL */ struct bpf_map *map_ptr; + + /* Max size from any of the above. */ + unsigned long raw; }; /* Fixed part of pointer offset, pointer types only */ s32 off; diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 171a2c88e77d..774fa40a32ae 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -3046,7 +3046,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg->umax_value = umax_ptr; dst_reg->var_off = ptr_reg->var_off; dst_reg->off = ptr_reg->off + smin_val; - dst_reg->range = ptr_reg->range; + dst_reg->raw = ptr_reg->raw; break; } /* A new variable offset is created. Note that off_reg->off @@ -3076,10 +3076,11 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } dst_reg->var_off = tnum_add(ptr_reg->var_off, off_reg->var_off); dst_reg->off = ptr_reg->off; + dst_reg->raw = ptr_reg->raw; if (reg_is_pkt_pointer(ptr_reg)) { dst_reg->id = ++env->id_gen; /* something was added to pkt_ptr, set range to zero */ - dst_reg->range = 0; + dst_reg->raw = 0; } break; case BPF_SUB: @@ -3108,7 +3109,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg->var_off = ptr_reg->var_off; dst_reg->id = ptr_reg->id; dst_reg->off = ptr_reg->off - smin_val; - dst_reg->range = ptr_reg->range; + dst_reg->raw = ptr_reg->raw; break; } /* A new variable offset is created. If the subtrahend is known @@ -3134,11 +3135,12 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } dst_reg->var_off = tnum_sub(ptr_reg->var_off, off_reg->var_off); dst_reg->off = ptr_reg->off; + dst_reg->raw = ptr_reg->raw; if (reg_is_pkt_pointer(ptr_reg)) { dst_reg->id = ++env->id_gen; /* something was added to pkt_ptr, set range to zero */ if (smin_val < 0) - dst_reg->range = 0; + dst_reg->raw = 0; } break; case BPF_AND: From 4d31f30148cea6e97e42616231eed55295117fe7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 00:05:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] bpf: don't set id on after map lookup with ptr_to_map_val return In the verifier there is no such semantics where registers with PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE type have an id assigned to them. This is only used in PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL and later on nullified once the test against NULL has been pattern matched and type transformed into PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE. Fixes: 3e6a4b3e0289 ("bpf/verifier: introduce BPF_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Roman Gushchin Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 774fa40a32ae..1971ca325fb4 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2852,10 +2852,6 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn regs[BPF_REG_0].type = NOT_INIT; } else if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL || fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) { - if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) - regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE; - else - regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL; /* There is no offset yet applied, variable or fixed */ mark_reg_known_zero(env, regs, BPF_REG_0); /* remember map_ptr, so that check_map_access() @@ -2868,7 +2864,12 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn return -EINVAL; } regs[BPF_REG_0].map_ptr = meta.map_ptr; - regs[BPF_REG_0].id = ++env->id_gen; + if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) { + regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE; + } else { + regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL; + regs[BPF_REG_0].id = ++env->id_gen; + } } else if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL) { int id = acquire_reference_state(env, insn_idx); if (id < 0) From 2683f4128c8730699296827d3209d2de80fa1d6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 00:05:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] bpf: add various test cases to test_verifier Add some more map related test cases to test_verifier kselftest to improve test coverage. Summary: 1012 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 250 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 250 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 36f3d3009d1a..4c7445d4b3e6 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -6454,6 +6454,256 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 min value is negative", .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT, }, + { + "map access: known scalar += value_ptr", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 3), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = 1, + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr += known scalar", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 3), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = 1, + }, + { + "map access: unknown scalar += value_ptr", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, 0xf), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = 1, + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr += unknown scalar", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, 0xf), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = 1, + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr += value_ptr", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 pointer += pointer prohibited", + }, + { + "map access: known scalar -= value_ptr", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 3), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R1 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr -= known scalar", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 3), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 min value is outside of the array range", + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr -= known scalar, 2", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 5), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 6), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 4), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = 1, + }, + { + "map access: unknown scalar -= value_ptr", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, 0xf), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R1 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr -= unknown scalar", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, 0xf), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 min value is negative", + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr -= unknown scalar, 2", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, 0xf), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_1, 0x7), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, 0x7), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = 1, + }, + { + "map access: value_ptr -= value_ptr", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer -= pointer prohibited", + }, { "map lookup helper access to map", .insns = { From 832c6f2c29ec519b766923937f4f93fb1008b47d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 00:05:55 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier Right now unprivileged tests are never executed as a BPF test run, only loaded. Allow for running them as well so that we can check the outcome and probe for regressions. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 71 ++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 4c7445d4b3e6..6f61df62f690 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct bpf_test { int fixup_percpu_cgroup_storage[MAX_FIXUPS]; const char *errstr; const char *errstr_unpriv; - uint32_t retval; + uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv; enum { UNDEF, ACCEPT, @@ -3084,6 +3084,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .fixup_prog1 = { 2 }, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 42, + /* Verifier rewrite for unpriv skips tail call here. */ + .retval_unpriv = 2, }, { "stack pointer arithmetic", @@ -14149,6 +14151,33 @@ static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, enum bpf_map_type prog_type, } } +static int set_admin(bool admin) +{ + cap_t caps; + const cap_value_t cap_val = CAP_SYS_ADMIN; + int ret = -1; + + caps = cap_get_proc(); + if (!caps) { + perror("cap_get_proc"); + return -1; + } + if (cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1, &cap_val, + admin ? CAP_SET : CAP_CLEAR)) { + perror("cap_set_flag"); + goto out; + } + if (cap_set_proc(caps)) { + perror("cap_set_proc"); + goto out; + } + ret = 0; +out: + if (cap_free(caps)) + perror("cap_free"); + return ret; +} + static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, int *passes, int *errors) { @@ -14157,6 +14186,7 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, struct bpf_insn *prog = test->insns; int map_fds[MAX_NR_MAPS]; const char *expected_err; + uint32_t expected_val; uint32_t retval; int i, err; @@ -14176,6 +14206,8 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, test->result_unpriv : test->result; expected_err = unpriv && test->errstr_unpriv ? test->errstr_unpriv : test->errstr; + expected_val = unpriv && test->retval_unpriv ? + test->retval_unpriv : test->retval; reject_from_alignment = fd_prog < 0 && (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) && @@ -14209,16 +14241,20 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2]; __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp); + if (unpriv) + set_admin(true); err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, test->data, sizeof(test->data), tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL); + if (unpriv) + set_admin(false); if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) { printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error\n"); goto fail_log; } - if (!err && retval != test->retval && - test->retval != POINTER_VALUE) { - printf("FAIL retval %d != %d\n", retval, test->retval); + if (!err && retval != expected_val && + expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) { + printf("FAIL retval %d != %d\n", retval, expected_val); goto fail_log; } } @@ -14261,33 +14297,6 @@ static bool is_admin(void) return (sysadmin == CAP_SET); } -static int set_admin(bool admin) -{ - cap_t caps; - const cap_value_t cap_val = CAP_SYS_ADMIN; - int ret = -1; - - caps = cap_get_proc(); - if (!caps) { - perror("cap_get_proc"); - return -1; - } - if (cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1, &cap_val, - admin ? CAP_SET : CAP_CLEAR)) { - perror("cap_set_flag"); - goto out; - } - if (cap_set_proc(caps)) { - perror("cap_set_proc"); - goto out; - } - ret = 0; -out: - if (cap_free(caps)) - perror("cap_free"); - return ret; -} - static void get_unpriv_disabled() { char buf[2];