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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2444df33-cd03-a929-9ce8-3cf1376d3f78@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:41:54 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 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: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next
 tree

On 9/4/24 3:16 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:02:21 +1000
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    drivers/net/netkit.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    00d066a4d4ed ("netdev_features: convert NETIF_F_LLTX to dev->lltx")
>>
>> from the net-next tree and commit:
>>
>>    d96608794889 ("netkit: Disable netpoll support")
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Your fix is technically correct, but maybe swap the lines?
> 
>   	dev->priv_flags |= IFF_NO_QUEUE;
> +	dev->priv_flags |= IFF_DISABLE_NETPOLL;
> +	dev->lltx = true;
> 
> Looks more natural I'd say...

Yep, 100%, we'll use that as merge conflict resolution when flushing the
next PR, thanks!