linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xtensa tree with the sh tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:42:30 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Karcher <kernel@...rcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xtensa tree with the sh tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:23:30 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xtensa tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   469023465e79 ("sh: Add SECCOMP_FILTER")
> 
> from the sh tree and commit:
> 
>   deccfc9ce639 ("selftests/seccomp: add xtensa support")
> 
> from the xtensa 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/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index 06d994a34997,1b445c2e7fbe..000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@@ -124,8 -122,8 +124,10 @@@ struct seccomp_data 
>   #  define __NR_seccomp 358
>   # elif defined(__s390__)
>   #  define __NR_seccomp 348
>  +# elif defined(__sh__)
>  +#  define __NR_seccomp 372
> + # elif defined(__xtensa__)
> + #  define __NR_seccomp 337
>   # else
>   #  warning "seccomp syscall number unknown for this architecture"
>   #  define __NR_seccomp 0xffff
> @@@ -1634,10 -1624,14 +1636,18 @@@ TEST_F(TRACE_poke, getpid_runs_normally
>   # define SYSCALL_SYSCALL_NUM regs[4]
>   # define SYSCALL_RET	regs[2]
>   # define SYSCALL_NUM_RET_SHARE_REG
>  +#elif defined(__sh__)
>  +# define ARCH_REGS	struct pt_regs
>  +# define SYSCALL_NUM	gpr[3]
>  +# define SYSCALL_RET	gpr[0]
> + #elif defined(__xtensa__)
> + # define ARCH_REGS	struct user_pt_regs
> + # define SYSCALL_NUM	syscall
> + /*
> +  * On xtensa syscall return value is in the register
> +  * a2 of the current window which is not fixed.
> +  */
> + #define SYSCALL_RET(reg) a[(reg).windowbase * 4 + 2]
>   #else
>   # error "Do not know how to find your architecture's registers and syscalls"
>   #endif
> @@@ -1710,7 -1704,7 +1720,7 @@@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metad
>   
>   #if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__powerpc__) || \
>   	defined(__s390__) || defined(__hppa__) || defined(__riscv) || \
> - 	defined(__csky__) || defined(__sh__)
>  -	defined(__xtensa__)
> ++	defined(__csky__) || defined(__sh__) || defined(__xtensa__)
>   	{
>   		regs.SYSCALL_NUM = syscall;
>   	}

This is now a conflict between the sh tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped