linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221027110700.110214a9@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 11:07:00 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:

  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

  271de525e1d7 ("bpf: Remove prog->active check for bpf_lsm and bpf_iter")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  b2e9dfe54be4 ("x86/bpf: Emit call depth accounting if required")

from the tip 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/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index cec5195602bc,f46b62029d91..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@@ -11,8 -11,8 +11,9 @@@
  #include <linux/bpf.h>
  #include <linux/memory.h>
  #include <linux/sort.h>
 +#include <linux/init.h>
  #include <asm/extable.h>
+ #include <asm/ftrace.h>
  #include <asm/set_memory.h>
  #include <asm/nospec-branch.h>
  #include <asm/text-patching.h>
@@@ -1930,7 -1869,7 +1948,7 @@@ static int invoke_bpf_prog(const struc
  	/* arg2: lea rsi, [rbp - ctx_cookie_off] */
  	EMIT4(0x48, 0x8D, 0x75, -run_ctx_off);
  
- 	if (emit_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_enter(p), prog))
 -	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, enter, prog))
++	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_enter(p), prog))
  		return -EINVAL;
  	/* remember prog start time returned by __bpf_prog_enter */
  	emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0);
@@@ -1975,7 -1914,7 +1993,7 @@@
  	emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6);
  	/* arg3: lea rdx, [rbp - run_ctx_off] */
  	EMIT4(0x48, 0x8D, 0x55, -run_ctx_off);
- 	if (emit_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_exit(p), prog))
 -	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, exit, prog))
++	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_exit(p), prog))
  		return -EINVAL;
  
  	*pprog = prog;

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped