linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:40:38 -0800
From:   Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:13 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:12:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.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