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
the syscall BPF_PROG_ATTACH return EBADF when CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF is
turned off and as result the bpf_firewall_supported() returns the
incorrect value.

This commmit replaces the syscall BPF_PROG_ATTACH with BPF_PROG_DETACH
which is still work as expected.

Resolves openbmc/linux#159
See also systemd/systemd#7054

Originally written by:
Alexander Filippov <a.filippov@yadro.com>

Signed-off-by: Ed Tanous <ed.tanous@intel.com>
---
 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 8b66ef73d..e68b70d0c 100644
--- a/src/core/bpf-firewall.c
+++ b/src/core/bpf-firewall.c
@@ -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
-         * e) the BPF implementation in the kernel supports the BPF_PROG_ATTACH call, which we require
+         * e) the BPF implementation in the kernel supports the BPF_PROG_DETACH call, which we require
          *
          */
 
@@ -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?
          *
-         * We detect this case by issuing the BPF_PROG_ATTACH bpf() call with invalid file descriptors: if
+         * We detect this case by issuing the BPF_PROG_DETACH bpf() call with invalid file descriptors: if
          * 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. */
 
@@ -724,15 +724,15 @@ int bpf_firewall_supported(void) {
                 .attach_bpf_fd = -1,
         };
 
-        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,
         };
 
-        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 = 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;
         }
 }
-- 
2.17.1