linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:07:48 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Christian Brauner
 <brauner@...nel.org>, Christian Göttsche
 <cgzones@...glemail.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Mark
 Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the
 vfs-brauner tree

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:05:23 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Jiri,
> 
> [Cc'd Mark Brown and Michael Ellerman just in case they decide to do
> linux-next releases whil I am away.]
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:07:54 +0200 Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:42:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got conflicts in:
> > > 
> > >   arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > >   include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls")
> > > 
> > > from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call")
> > > 
> > > from the ftrace 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/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > index 26af003921d2,6452c2ec469a..000000000000
> > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > @@@ -385,10 -384,7 +385,11 @@@
> > >   460	common	lsm_set_self_attr	sys_lsm_set_self_attr
> > >   461	common	lsm_list_modules	sys_lsm_list_modules
> > >   462 	common  mseal			sys_mseal
> > >  -463	64	uretprobe		sys_uretprobe
> > >  +463	common	setxattrat		sys_setxattrat
> > >  +464	common	getxattrat		sys_getxattrat
> > >  +465	common	listxattrat		sys_listxattrat
> > >  +466	common	removexattrat		sys_removexattrat
> > > ++467	64	uretprobe		sys_uretprobe
> > >   
> > >   #
> > >   # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently
> > > diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > index 5b8dab0b934e,2378f88d5ad4..000000000000
> > > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > @@@ -845,17 -845,11 +845,20 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_lsm_list_modules, sys_ls
> > >   #define __NR_mseal 462
> > >   __SYSCALL(__NR_mseal, sys_mseal)
> > >   
> > >  -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> > >  +#define __NR_setxattrat 463
> > >  +__SYSCALL(__NR_setxattrat, sys_setxattrat)
> > >  +#define __NR_getxattrat 464
> > >  +__SYSCALL(__NR_getxattrat, sys_getxattrat)
> > >  +#define __NR_listxattrat 465
> > >  +__SYSCALL(__NR_listxattrat, sys_listxattrat)
> > >  +#define __NR_removexattrat 466
> > >  +__SYSCALL(__NR_removexattrat, sys_removexattrat)
> > >  +
> > > ++#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> > > + __SYSCALL(__NR_uretprobe, sys_uretprobe)  
> > 
> > hi,
> > we need one more change in tests (below), otherwise lgtm
> > I can send formal patch for you if needed, plz let me know
> > 
> > thanks,
> > jirka
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > index c8517c8f5313..bd8c75b620c2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_uretprobe_regs_change(void)
> >  }
> >  
> >  #ifndef __NR_uretprobe
> > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> > +#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  __naked unsigned long uretprobe_syscall_call_1(void)
> 
> Or you could change __NR_uretprobe in the patch set to 467, then this
> will become just a conflict and not a renumbering.

OK, Jiri, can you send it to me. I will update probes/for-next.

Thank you,


> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>