Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757338AbdDRAjO (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:39:14 -0400 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:56605 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756529AbdDRAjJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:39:09 -0400 Message-ID: <58F56025.40904@iogearbox.net> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:39:01 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Networking CC: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree References: <20170418101835.745d2576@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20170418101835.745d2576@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2112 Lines: 58 On 04/18/2017 02:18 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > between commits: > > 6b1bb01bcc5b ("bpf: fix cb access in socket filter programs on tail calls") > c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") > > from the net tree and commit: > > e245c5c6a565 ("bpf: move fixup_bpf_calls() function") > 79741b3bdec0 ("bpf: refactor fixup_bpf_calls()") > > from the net-next tree. > > I fixed it up (the latter moved and changed teh code modified by the > former - I added the following fix up patch) 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. > > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:16:03 +1000 > Subject: [PATCH] bpf: merge fix for move of fixup_bpf_calls() > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > --- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index 62e1e447ded9..5939b4c81fe1 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -3349,6 +3349,14 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) > if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_xdp_adjust_head) > prog->xdp_adjust_head = 1; > if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) { > + /* If we tail call into other programs, we > + * cannot make any assumptions since they > + * can be replaced dynamically during runtime > + * in the program array. > + */ > + prog->cb_access = 1; > + prog->xdp_adjust_head = 1; > + > /* mark bpf_tail_call as different opcode to avoid > * conditional branch in the interpeter for every normal > * call and to prevent accidental JITing by JIT compiler > Looks good, thanks.