Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> <20210215081250.19bc8921@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20210215081250.19bc8921@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Arjun Roy <arjunroy@google.com>
Date:   Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:40:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOFY-A2sLGQHpBp79f2bQ-2hgQDbu04e+7uC9+E3vSo7Cqq5=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:13 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:12:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   net/ipv4/tcp.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   7eeba1706eba ("tcp: Add receive timestamp support for receive zerocopy.")
> >
> > from the net-next tree and commit:
> >
> >   9cacf81f8161 ("bpf: Remove extra lock_sock for TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE")
> >
> > from the bpf-next 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 net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > index e1a17c6b473c,26aa923cf522..000000000000
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > @@@ -4160,18 -4098,13 +4160,20 @@@ static int do_tcp_getsockopt(struct soc
> >               if (copy_from_user(&zc, optval, len))
> >                       return -EFAULT;
> >               lock_sock(sk);
> >  -            err = tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc);
> >  +            err = tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc, &tss);
> > +             err = BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT_KERN(sk, level, optname,
> > +                                                       &zc, &len, err);
> >               release_sock(sk);
> >  -            if (len >= offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, err))
> >  -                    goto zerocopy_rcv_sk_err;
> >  +            if (len >= offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_flags))
> >  +                    goto zerocopy_rcv_cmsg;
> >               switch (len) {
> >  +            case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_flags):
> >  +                    goto zerocopy_rcv_cmsg;
> >  +            case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_controllen):
> >  +            case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_control):
> >  +            case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, flags):
> >  +            case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, copybuf_len):
> >  +            case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, copybuf_address):
> >               case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, err):
> >                       goto zerocopy_rcv_sk_err;
> >               case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, inq):
>
> With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this
> conflict still exists.
>
Sorry, I was confused from the prior email. Is any action required at
the moment, or not?

Thanks,
-Arjun

> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell