diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'meta-phosphor/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0006-core-fix-the-check-if-CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF-is-on.patch')
| -rw-r--r-- | meta-phosphor/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0006-core-fix-the-check-if-CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF-is-on.patch | 66 |
1 files changed, 44 insertions, 22 deletions
diff --git a/meta-phosphor/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0006-core-fix-the-check-if-CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF-is-on.patch b/meta-phosphor/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0006-core-fix-the-check-if-CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF-is-on.patch index fc3f9e1ee..3645100ab 100644 --- a/meta-phosphor/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0006-core-fix-the-check-if-CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF-is-on.patch +++ b/meta-phosphor/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0006-core-fix-the-check-if-CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF-is-on.patch @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ -From 501fa6c60d303f0d6e747939172281d77247626e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 -From: Alexander Filippov <a.filippov@yadro.com> -Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:33:06 +0300 +From 4ea79c18f1e2081d59eaa0f1df479dbc7700779e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Ed Tanous <ed.tanous@intel.com> +Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:27:06 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] core: fix the check if CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF is on Since the commit torvalds/linux@fdb5c4531c1e0e50e609df83f736b6f3a02896e2 @@ -14,16 +14,19 @@ which is still work as expected. Resolves openbmc/linux#159 See also systemd/systemd#7054 -Signed-off-by: Alexander Filippov <a.filippov@yadro.com> +Originally written by: +Alexander Filippov <a.filippov@yadro.com> + +Signed-off-by: Ed Tanous <ed.tanous@intel.com> --- - src/core/bpf-firewall.c | 10 +++++----- - 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) + src/core/bpf-firewall.c | 14 +++++++------- + 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/core/bpf-firewall.c b/src/core/bpf-firewall.c -index f3f40fb0e8..51dc5b9506 100644 +index 8b66ef73d..e68b70d0c 100644 --- a/src/core/bpf-firewall.c +++ b/src/core/bpf-firewall.c -@@ -658,7 +658,7 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { +@@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { * b) whether the unified hierarchy is being used * c) the BPF implementation in the kernel supports BPF LPM TRIE maps, which we require * d) the BPF implementation in the kernel supports BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB programs, which we require @@ -32,7 +35,7 @@ index f3f40fb0e8..51dc5b9506 100644 * */ -@@ -711,7 +711,7 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { +@@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { * is turned off at kernel compilation time. This sucks of course: why does it allow us to create a cgroup BPF * program if we can't do a thing with it later? * @@ -41,24 +44,43 @@ index f3f40fb0e8..51dc5b9506 100644 * CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF is turned off, then the call will fail early with EINVAL. If it is turned on the * parameters are validated however, and that'll fail with EBADF then. */ -@@ -721,14 +721,14 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { +@@ -724,15 +724,15 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { .attach_bpf_fd = -1, }; -- r = bpf(BPF_PROG_ATTACH, &attr, sizeof(attr)); -+ r = bpf(BPF_PROG_DETACH, &attr, sizeof(attr)); - if (r < 0) { - if (errno == EBADF) /* YAY! */ - return supported = true; +- if (bpf(BPF_PROG_ATTACH, &attr, sizeof(attr)) < 0) { ++ if (bpf(BPF_PROG_DETACH, &attr, sizeof(attr)) < 0) { + if (errno != EBADF) { +- log_debug_errno(errno, "Didn't get EBADF from BPF_PROG_ATTACH, BPF firewalling is not supported: %m"); ++ log_debug_errno(errno, "Didn't get EBADF from BPF_PROG_DETACH, BPF firewalling is not supported: %m"); + return supported = BPF_FIREWALL_UNSUPPORTED; + } + + /* YAY! */ + } else { +- log_debug("Wut? Kernel accepted our invalid BPF_PROG_ATTACH call? Something is weird, assuming BPF firewalling is broken and hence not supported."); ++ log_debug("Wut? Kernel accepted our invalid BPF_PROG_DETACH call? Something is weird, assuming BPF firewalling is broken and hence not supported."); + return supported = BPF_FIREWALL_UNSUPPORTED; + } + +@@ -748,7 +748,7 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { + .attach_flags = BPF_F_ALLOW_MULTI, + }; -- log_debug_errno(errno, "Didn't get EBADF from BPF_PROG_ATTACH, BPF firewalling is not supported: %m"); -+ log_debug_errno(errno, "Didn't get EBADF from BPF_PROG_DETACH, BPF firewalling is not supported: %m"); - } else -- log_debug("Wut? kernel accepted our invalid BPF_PROG_ATTACH call? Something is weird, assuming BPF firewalling is broken and hence not supported."); -+ log_debug("Wut? kernel accepted our invalid BPF_PROG_DETACH call? Something is weird, assuming BPF firewalling is broken and hence not supported."); +- if (bpf(BPF_PROG_ATTACH, &attr, sizeof(attr)) < 0) { ++ if (bpf(BPF_PROG_DETACH, &attr, sizeof(attr)) < 0) { + if (errno == EBADF) { + log_debug_errno(errno, "Got EBADF when using BPF_F_ALLOW_MULTI, which indicates it is supported. Yay!"); + return supported = BPF_FIREWALL_SUPPORTED_WITH_MULTI; +@@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) { - return supported = false; + return supported = BPF_FIREWALL_SUPPORTED; + } else { +- log_debug("Wut? Kernel accepted our invalid BPF_PROG_ATTACH+BPF_F_ALLOW_MULTI call? Something is weird, assuming BPF firewalling is broken and hence not supported."); ++ log_debug("Wut? Kernel accepted our invalid BPF_PROG_DETACH+BPF_F_ALLOW_MULTI call? Something is weird, assuming BPF firewalling is broken and hence not supported."); + return supported = BPF_FIREWALL_UNSUPPORTED; + } } -- -2.14.4 +2.17.1 |