@@ -2529,10 +2529,6 @@ cgroup_current_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
return &bpf_get_current_pid_tgid_proto;
case BPF_FUNC_get_current_comm:
return &bpf_get_current_comm_proto;
- case BPF_FUNC_get_current_cgroup_id:
- return &bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto;
- case BPF_FUNC_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id:
- return &bpf_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id_proto;
#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_NET_CLASSID
case BPF_FUNC_get_cgroup_classid:
return &bpf_get_cgroup_classid_curr_proto;
@@ -1726,6 +1726,12 @@ bpf_base_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id)
return &bpf_task_pt_regs_proto;
case BPF_FUNC_trace_vprintk:
return bpf_get_trace_vprintk_proto();
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
+ case BPF_FUNC_get_current_cgroup_id:
+ return &bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto;
+ case BPF_FUNC_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id:
+ return &bpf_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id_proto;
+#endif
default:
return NULL;
}
@@ -1455,10 +1455,6 @@ bpf_tracing_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
NULL : &bpf_probe_read_compat_str_proto;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
- case BPF_FUNC_get_current_cgroup_id:
- return &bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto;
- case BPF_FUNC_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id:
- return &bpf_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id_proto;
case BPF_FUNC_cgrp_storage_get:
return &bpf_cgrp_storage_get_proto;
case BPF_FUNC_cgrp_storage_delete:
@@ -8144,12 +8144,6 @@ sk_msg_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
return &bpf_sk_storage_delete_proto;
case BPF_FUNC_get_netns_cookie:
return &bpf_get_netns_cookie_sk_msg_proto;
-#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
- case BPF_FUNC_get_current_cgroup_id:
- return &bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto;
- case BPF_FUNC_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id:
- return &bpf_get_current_ancestor_cgroup_id_proto;
-#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_NET_CLASSID
case BPF_FUNC_get_cgroup_classid:
return &bpf_get_cgroup_classid_curr_proto;
These helpers are safe to call from any context and there's no reason to restrict access to them. Remove them from bpf_trace and filter lists and add to bpf_base_func_proto() under perfmon_capable(). Please note that while test_verifier results remain the same, I'm unsure whether subjecting their availability to perfmon_capable() is the right decision. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> --- kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 4 ---- kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 6 ++++++ kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 4 ---- net/core/filter.c | 6 ------ 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)