Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZDWAcN6wfeXzipHz@gofer.mess.org> <CAADnVQJ-zzzTxDj8_7WKW-o3BDsU=DNAnvSEZGNHswbhGA8xhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZDe9ND/M4I9ll1xV@gofer.mess.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZDe9ND/M4I9ll1xV@gofer.mess.org>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2023 16:54:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLOmDEQsHX4XfgETXUte9mJ+-qphR_E7dcjXB2PMDaZnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: lirc program type should not require SYS_CAP_ADMIN
To:     Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 1:28=E2=80=AFAM Sean Young <sean@mess.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 8:45=E2=80=AFAM Sean Young <sean@mess.org> wrot=
e:
> > >
> > > Make it possible to load lirc program type with just CAP_BPF.
> >
> > Is it safe?
> > If the user can load with just CAP_BPF the FD to the prog and target_fd
> > will allow attach as well.
>
> Exactly, that's the $1m question of course.
>
> I think it's safe from a lirc perspective because you need to be able to
> open the /dev/lirc0 device in the first place; if you can open it, you
> alter all sorts of lirc receiving options already. Changing the IR protoc=
ol
> decoder is no different in that perspective.
>
> The other side of course, is it save to load a bpf lirc program as a norm=
al
> user. I don't see any issue with this; I guess this depends on whether th=
e
> subset of functions in lirc_mode2_func_proto() is safe. I am hoping that
> the expert opinion everyone here can help answer that question.

That part is fine under CAP_BPF.
I don't know how lirc devices are typically setup.
If they need root to open them
then why bother relaxing bpf loading part?