Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/2] samples/bpf: sample application for eBPF load and socket creation split

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:39 AM [off-list ref] wrote:

 int main(int argc, char **argv)
 {
+       struct __user_cap_header_struct hdr = { _LINUX_CAPABILITY_VERSION_3, 0 };
+       struct __user_cap_data_struct data[2] = { { 0 } };
        struct rlimit r = {RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY};
        bool rx = false, tx = false;
        struct xsk_umem_info *umem;
        struct bpf_object *obj;
+       int xsks_map_fd = 0;
        pthread_t pt;
        int i, ret;
        void *bufs;

        parse_command_line(argc, argv);

-       if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) {
-               fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) \"%s\"\n",
-                       strerror(errno));
-               exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+       if (opt_reduced_cap) {
+               if (capget(&hdr, data)  < 0)
+                       fprintf(stderr, "Error getting capabilities\n");
+
+               data->effective &= CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_NET_RAW);
+               data->permitted &= CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_NET_RAW);
+
+               if (capset(&hdr, data) < 0)
+                       fprintf(stderr, "Setting capabilities failed\n");
+
+               if (capget(&hdr, data)  < 0) {
+                       fprintf(stderr, "Error getting capabilities\n");
+               } else {
+                       fprintf(stderr, "Capabilities EFF %x Caps INH %x Caps Per %x\n",
+                               data[0].effective, data[0].inheritable, data[0].permitted);
+                       fprintf(stderr, "Capabilities EFF %x Caps INH %x Caps Per %x\n",
+                               data[1].effective, data[1].inheritable, data[1].permitted);
+               }
+       } else {
+               if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) {
+                       fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) \"%s\"\n",
+                               strerror(errno));
+                       exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+               }

Due to this hunk the patch had an unpleasant conflict with Roman's set
and I had to drop this set from bpf-next.
Please rebase and resend.

But it made me look into this change...why did you make rlimit conditional here?
That doesn't look right.