linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbU_hzj=BQQC5arRwN5TY+vHS9S9acts=c1kX28C95zkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:13:30 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 6:36 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   10cdb82aa77f ("uprobes: turn trace_uprobe's nhit counter to be per-CPU one")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   ca088d067ebd ("uprobes: make trace_uprobe->nhit counter a per-CPU one")
>
> from the ftrace tree.

Hm... sounds like two versions of my patch were applied to two
different trees or something? FWIW, 10cdb82aa77f is the right one cto
pick (I didn't check which one is in Linus' tree), but the differences
are tiny.

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
index 87b468d93f6a..c3df411a2684 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
@@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ static int probes_profile_seq_show(struct seq_file
*m, void *v)

        nhits = 0;
        for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-               nhits += READ_ONCE(*per_cpu_ptr(tu->nhits, cpu));
+               nhits += per_cpu(*tu->nhits, cpu);
        }

        seq_printf(m, "  %s %-44s %15lu\n", tu->filename,

>
> I fixed it up (I just used the version from Linus' tree) 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