2022-09-27 19:19:05

by Mark Brown

Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the bpf-next tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:

tools/objtool/check.c

between commit:

9440155ccb948 ("ftrace: Add HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

3c68a92d17add ("objtool: Disable CFI warnings")

from the kspp tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

diff --cc tools/objtool/check.c
index fcc4d8ea8cec3,48e18737a2d18..0000000000000
--- a/tools/objtool/check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
@@@ -4124,7 -4118,7 +4128,8 @@@ static int validate_ibt(struct objtool_
!strcmp(sec->name, "__ex_table") ||
!strcmp(sec->name, "__jump_table") ||
!strcmp(sec->name, "__mcount_loc") ||
- !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))
++ !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps")) ||
+ strstr(sec->name, "__patchable_function_entries"))
continue;

list_for_each_entry(reloc, &sec->reloc->reloc_list, list)

2022-09-27 20:19:25

by Kees Cook

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the bpf-next tree

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 08:08:11PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/objtool/check.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 9440155ccb948 ("ftrace: Add HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE")
>
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>
> 3c68a92d17add ("objtool: Disable CFI warnings")
>
> from the kspp tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> diff --cc tools/objtool/check.c
> index fcc4d8ea8cec3,48e18737a2d18..0000000000000
> --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@@ -4124,7 -4118,7 +4128,8 @@@ static int validate_ibt(struct objtool_
> !strcmp(sec->name, "__ex_table") ||
> !strcmp(sec->name, "__jump_table") ||
> !strcmp(sec->name, "__mcount_loc") ||
> - !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))
> ++ !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps")) ||
> + strstr(sec->name, "__patchable_function_entries"))
> continue;
>
> list_for_each_entry(reloc, &sec->reloc->reloc_list, list)

Thanks, yes; this matches what I had when I did a test merge yesterday
too.

--
Kees Cook