From: Chenbo Feng fengc@google.com
commit e547ff3f803e779a3898f1f48447b29f43c54085 upstream.
For iptable module to load a bpf program from a pinned location, it only retrieve a loaded program and cannot change the program content so requiring a write permission for it might not be necessary. Also when adding or removing an unrelated iptable rule, it might need to flush and reload the xt_bpf related rules as well and triggers the inode permission check. It might be better to remove the write premission check for the inode so we won't need to grant write access to all the processes that flush and restore iptables rules.
Signed-off-by: Chenbo Feng fengc@google.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- kernel/bpf/inode.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/inode.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/inode.c @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ out: static struct bpf_prog *__get_prog_inode(struct inode *inode, enum bpf_prog_type type) { struct bpf_prog *prog; - int ret = inode_permission(inode, MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE); + int ret = inode_permission(inode, MAY_READ); if (ret) return ERR_PTR(ret);