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

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbDyeMG4KdgryqFTTT3t5EQWRsKf8n1W6AHL_VOW0SC7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 09:57:46 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@...a.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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 4:35 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:
>
>   kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>
> between commits:
>
>   ea0714d61dea ("bpf:add _impl suffix for bpf_task_work_schedule* kfuncs")
>   137cc92ffe2e ("bpf: add _impl suffix for bpf_stream_vprintk() kfunc")
>
> from the bpf tree and commit:
>
>   8d8771dc03e4 ("bpf: add plumbing for file-backed dynptr")
>
> 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 kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index e4007fea4909,865b0dae38d1..000000000000
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@@ -4380,9 -4531,11 +4535,11 @@@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strncasestr)
>   #if defined(CONFIG_BPF_LSM) && defined(CONFIG_CGROUPS)
>   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cgroup_read_xattr, KF_RCU)
>   #endif
>  -BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_stream_vprintk, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
>  -BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_work_schedule_signal, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
>  -BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_work_schedule_resume, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
>  +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_stream_vprintk_impl, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
>  +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_work_schedule_signal_impl, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
>  +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_work_schedule_resume_impl, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
> + BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_dynptr_from_file, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
> + BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_dynptr_file_discard)
>   BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids)

LGTM, thanks

>
>   static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = {