Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got conflicts in:
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
between commit:
e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls")
from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call")
from the ftrace 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
index 26af003921d2,6452c2ec469a..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
@@@ -385,10 -384,7 +385,11 @@@
460 common lsm_set_self_attr sys_lsm_set_self_attr
461 common lsm_list_modules sys_lsm_list_modules
462 common mseal sys_mseal
-463 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
+463 common setxattrat sys_setxattrat
+464 common getxattrat sys_getxattrat
+465 common listxattrat sys_listxattrat
+466 common removexattrat sys_removexattrat
++467 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
#
# Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently
diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
index 5b8dab0b934e,2378f88d5ad4..000000000000
--- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
+++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
@@@ -845,17 -845,11 +845,20 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_lsm_list_modules, sys_ls
#define __NR_mseal 462
__SYSCALL(__NR_mseal, sys_mseal)
-#define __NR_uretprobe 463
+#define __NR_setxattrat 463
+__SYSCALL(__NR_setxattrat, sys_setxattrat)
+#define __NR_getxattrat 464
+__SYSCALL(__NR_getxattrat, sys_getxattrat)
+#define __NR_listxattrat 465
+__SYSCALL(__NR_listxattrat, sys_listxattrat)
+#define __NR_removexattrat 466
+__SYSCALL(__NR_removexattrat, sys_removexattrat)
+
++#define __NR_uretprobe 467
+ __SYSCALL(__NR_uretprobe, sys_uretprobe)
+
#undef __NR_syscalls
- #define __NR_syscalls 467
-#define __NR_syscalls 464
++#define __NR_syscalls 468
/*
* 32 bit systems traditionally used different
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:42:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got conflicts in:
>
> arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
>
> between commit:
>
> e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>
> 190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call")
>
> from the ftrace 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> index 26af003921d2,6452c2ec469a..000000000000
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> @@@ -385,10 -384,7 +385,11 @@@
> 460 common lsm_set_self_attr sys_lsm_set_self_attr
> 461 common lsm_list_modules sys_lsm_list_modules
> 462 common mseal sys_mseal
> -463 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
> +463 common setxattrat sys_setxattrat
> +464 common getxattrat sys_getxattrat
> +465 common listxattrat sys_listxattrat
> +466 common removexattrat sys_removexattrat
> ++467 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
>
> #
> # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently
> diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> index 5b8dab0b934e,2378f88d5ad4..000000000000
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> @@@ -845,17 -845,11 +845,20 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_lsm_list_modules, sys_ls
> #define __NR_mseal 462
> __SYSCALL(__NR_mseal, sys_mseal)
>
> -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> +#define __NR_setxattrat 463
> +__SYSCALL(__NR_setxattrat, sys_setxattrat)
> +#define __NR_getxattrat 464
> +__SYSCALL(__NR_getxattrat, sys_getxattrat)
> +#define __NR_listxattrat 465
> +__SYSCALL(__NR_listxattrat, sys_listxattrat)
> +#define __NR_removexattrat 466
> +__SYSCALL(__NR_removexattrat, sys_removexattrat)
> +
> ++#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> + __SYSCALL(__NR_uretprobe, sys_uretprobe)
hi,
we need one more change in tests (below), otherwise lgtm
I can send formal patch for you if needed, plz let me know
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
index c8517c8f5313..bd8c75b620c2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_uretprobe_regs_change(void)
}
#ifndef __NR_uretprobe
-#define __NR_uretprobe 463
+#define __NR_uretprobe 467
#endif
__naked unsigned long uretprobe_syscall_call_1(void)
Hi Jiri,
[Cc'd Mark Brown and Michael Ellerman just in case they decide to do
linux-next releases whil I am away.]
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:07:54 +0200 Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:42:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got conflicts in:
> >
> > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls")
> >
> > from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> >
> > 190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call")
> >
> > from the ftrace 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.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > diff --cc arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > index 26af003921d2,6452c2ec469a..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > @@@ -385,10 -384,7 +385,11 @@@
> > 460 common lsm_set_self_attr sys_lsm_set_self_attr
> > 461 common lsm_list_modules sys_lsm_list_modules
> > 462 common mseal sys_mseal
> > -463 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
> > +463 common setxattrat sys_setxattrat
> > +464 common getxattrat sys_getxattrat
> > +465 common listxattrat sys_listxattrat
> > +466 common removexattrat sys_removexattrat
> > ++467 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
> >
> > #
> > # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently
> > diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > index 5b8dab0b934e,2378f88d5ad4..000000000000
> > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > @@@ -845,17 -845,11 +845,20 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_lsm_list_modules, sys_ls
> > #define __NR_mseal 462
> > __SYSCALL(__NR_mseal, sys_mseal)
> >
> > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> > +#define __NR_setxattrat 463
> > +__SYSCALL(__NR_setxattrat, sys_setxattrat)
> > +#define __NR_getxattrat 464
> > +__SYSCALL(__NR_getxattrat, sys_getxattrat)
> > +#define __NR_listxattrat 465
> > +__SYSCALL(__NR_listxattrat, sys_listxattrat)
> > +#define __NR_removexattrat 466
> > +__SYSCALL(__NR_removexattrat, sys_removexattrat)
> > +
> > ++#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> > + __SYSCALL(__NR_uretprobe, sys_uretprobe)
>
> hi,
> we need one more change in tests (below), otherwise lgtm
> I can send formal patch for you if needed, plz let me know
>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
>
> ---
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> index c8517c8f5313..bd8c75b620c2 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_uretprobe_regs_change(void)
> }
>
> #ifndef __NR_uretprobe
> -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> +#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> #endif
>
> __naked unsigned long uretprobe_syscall_call_1(void)
Or you could change __NR_uretprobe in the patch set to 467, then this
will become just a conflict and not a renumbering.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:05:23 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> [Cc'd Mark Brown and Michael Ellerman just in case they decide to do
> linux-next releases whil I am away.]
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:07:54 +0200 Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:42:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got conflicts in:
> > >
> > > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls")
> > >
> > > from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> > >
> > > 190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call")
> > >
> > > from the ftrace 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.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Stephen Rothwell
> > >
> > > diff --cc arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > index 26af003921d2,6452c2ec469a..000000000000
> > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > @@@ -385,10 -384,7 +385,11 @@@
> > > 460 common lsm_set_self_attr sys_lsm_set_self_attr
> > > 461 common lsm_list_modules sys_lsm_list_modules
> > > 462 common mseal sys_mseal
> > > -463 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
> > > +463 common setxattrat sys_setxattrat
> > > +464 common getxattrat sys_getxattrat
> > > +465 common listxattrat sys_listxattrat
> > > +466 common removexattrat sys_removexattrat
> > > ++467 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe
> > >
> > > #
> > > # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently
> > > diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > index 5b8dab0b934e,2378f88d5ad4..000000000000
> > > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > @@@ -845,17 -845,11 +845,20 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_lsm_list_modules, sys_ls
> > > #define __NR_mseal 462
> > > __SYSCALL(__NR_mseal, sys_mseal)
> > >
> > > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> > > +#define __NR_setxattrat 463
> > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_setxattrat, sys_setxattrat)
> > > +#define __NR_getxattrat 464
> > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_getxattrat, sys_getxattrat)
> > > +#define __NR_listxattrat 465
> > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_listxattrat, sys_listxattrat)
> > > +#define __NR_removexattrat 466
> > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_removexattrat, sys_removexattrat)
> > > +
> > > ++#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> > > + __SYSCALL(__NR_uretprobe, sys_uretprobe)
> >
> > hi,
> > we need one more change in tests (below), otherwise lgtm
> > I can send formal patch for you if needed, plz let me know
> >
> > thanks,
> > jirka
> >
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > index c8517c8f5313..bd8c75b620c2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_uretprobe_regs_change(void)
> > }
> >
> > #ifndef __NR_uretprobe
> > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> > +#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> > #endif
> >
> > __naked unsigned long uretprobe_syscall_call_1(void)
>
> Or you could change __NR_uretprobe in the patch set to 467, then this
> will become just a conflict and not a renumbering.
OK, Jiri, can you send it to me. I will update probes/for-next.
Thank you,
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>