linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next 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: <CAEf4BzamHrmdwRFKAr9MGSmaVtrJT3-ru=KPXEcO981XZsM+Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 20:07:32 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Viktor Malik <vmalik@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>, 
	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>, 
	Simon Sundberg <simon.sundberg@....se>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 6:02 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>
> between commit:
>
>   f91b256644ea ("selftests/bpf: Add test for kfunc module order")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   c3566ee6c66c ("selftests/bpf: remove test_tcp_check_syncookie")
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> index 75016962f795,6d15355f1e62..000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> @@@ -154,11 -153,9 +153,10 @@@ TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED := with_addr.sh
>
>   # Compile but not part of 'make run_tests'
>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED = \
> -       flow_dissector_load test_flow_dissector test_tcp_check_syncookie_user \
> -       test_lirc_mode2_user xdping test_cpp runqslower bench bpf_testmod.ko \
> -       xskxceiver xdp_redirect_multi xdp_synproxy veristat xdp_hw_metadata \
> -       xdp_features bpf_test_no_cfi.ko bpf_test_modorder_x.ko \
> -       bpf_test_modorder_y.ko
> +       flow_dissector_load test_flow_dissector test_lirc_mode2_user xdping \
> +       test_cpp runqslower bench bpf_testmod.ko xskxceiver xdp_redirect_multi \
>  -      xdp_synproxy veristat xdp_hw_metadata xdp_features bpf_test_no_cfi.ko
> ++      xdp_synproxy veristat xdp_hw_metadata xdp_features bpf_test_no_cfi.ko \
> ++      bpf_test_modorder_x.ko bpf_test_modorder_y.ko
>
>   TEST_GEN_FILES += liburandom_read.so urandom_read sign-file uprobe_multi
>
> @@@ -301,22 -302,11 +303,24 @@@ $(OUTPUT)/bpf_testmod.ko: $(VMLINUX_BTF
>   $(OUTPUT)/bpf_test_no_cfi.ko: $(VMLINUX_BTF) $(RESOLVE_BTFIDS) $(wildcard bpf_test_no_cfi/Makefile bpf_test_no_cfi/*.[ch])
>         $(call msg,MOD,,$@)
>         $(Q)$(RM) bpf_test_no_cfi/bpf_test_no_cfi.ko # force re-compilation
> -       $(Q)$(MAKE) $(submake_extras) RESOLVE_BTFIDS=$(RESOLVE_BTFIDS) -C bpf_test_no_cfi
> +       $(Q)$(MAKE) $(submake_extras) -C bpf_test_no_cfi \
> +               RESOLVE_BTFIDS=$(RESOLVE_BTFIDS)         \
> +               EXTRA_CFLAGS='' EXTRA_LDFLAGS=''
>         $(Q)cp bpf_test_no_cfi/bpf_test_no_cfi.ko $@
>
>  +$(OUTPUT)/bpf_test_modorder_x.ko: $(VMLINUX_BTF) $(RESOLVE_BTFIDS) $(wildcard bpf_test_modorder_x/Makefile bpf_test_modorder_x/*.[ch])
>  +      $(call msg,MOD,,$@)
>  +      $(Q)$(RM) bpf_test_modorder_x/bpf_test_modorder_x.ko # force re-compilation
>  +      $(Q)$(MAKE) $(submake_extras) RESOLVE_BTFIDS=$(RESOLVE_BTFIDS) -C bpf_test_modorder_x
>  +      $(Q)cp bpf_test_modorder_x/bpf_test_modorder_x.ko $@
>  +
>  +$(OUTPUT)/bpf_test_modorder_y.ko: $(VMLINUX_BTF) $(RESOLVE_BTFIDS) $(wildcard bpf_test_modorder_y/Makefile bpf_test_modorder_y/*.[ch])
>  +      $(call msg,MOD,,$@)
>  +      $(Q)$(RM) bpf_test_modorder_y/bpf_test_modorder_y.ko # force re-compilation
>  +      $(Q)$(MAKE) $(submake_extras) RESOLVE_BTFIDS=$(RESOLVE_BTFIDS) -C bpf_test_modorder_y

This and above will need the EXTRA_CFLAGS and EXTRA_LDFLAGS additions
that we have for bpf_test_no_cfi.ko. For now, I'll unland the patch
set to avoid this conflict and breakage. We'll reapply once bpf is
merged into bpf-next. Viktor, please rebase to take into account these
new modorder.ko additions.


>  +      $(Q)cp bpf_test_modorder_y/bpf_test_modorder_y.ko $@
>  +
>  +
>   DEFAULT_BPFTOOL := $(HOST_SCRATCH_DIR)/sbin/bpftool
>   ifneq ($(CROSS_COMPILE),)
>   CROSS_BPFTOOL := $(SCRATCH_DIR)/sbin/bpftool