linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm 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: <7e816e0f-19af-4ef2-bf84-fc762ecbae26@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 10:19:34 -0400
From: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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>,
 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 bpf-next tree with the mm tree

On 2025-03-30 19:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:04:22 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    mm/page_owner.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    a5bc091881fd ("mm: page_owner: use new iteration API")
>>
>> from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
>>
>>    8c57b687e833 ("mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock()")
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> diff --cc mm/page_owner.c
>> index 849d4a471b6c,90e31d0e3ed7..000000000000
>> --- a/mm/page_owner.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_owner.c
>> @@@ -297,11 -293,17 +297,17 @@@ void __reset_page_owner(struct page *pa
>>    
>>    	page_owner = get_page_owner(page_ext);
>>    	alloc_handle = page_owner->handle;
>>   +	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>>    
>> - 	handle = save_stack(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
>> + 	/*
>> + 	 * Do not specify GFP_NOWAIT to make gfpflags_allow_spinning() == false
>> + 	 * to prevent issues in stack_depot_save().
>> + 	 * This is similar to try_alloc_pages() gfp flags, but only used
>> + 	 * to signal stack_depot to avoid spin_locks.
>> + 	 */
>> + 	handle = save_stack(__GFP_NOWARN);
>>   -	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page_ext, handle, order, current->pid,
>>   +	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page, handle, order, current->pid,
>>    					current->tgid, free_ts_nsec);
>>   -	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>>    
>>    	if (alloc_handle != early_handle)
>>    		/*
> 
> This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

What's the best way to resolve this? Should I post again or can we just use your fix?