netdev - linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161117104853.7c0a316d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:48:53 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:

  include/linux/bpf_verifier.h

between commit:

  f23cc643f9ba ("bpf: fix range arithmetic for bpf map access")

from the net tree and commit:

  57a09bf0a416 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers")

from the net-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 include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 6aaf425cebc3,ac5b393ee6b2..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@@ -22,8 -22,8 +22,9 @@@ struct bpf_reg_state 
  	 * Used to determine if any memory access using this register will
  	 * result in a bad access.
  	 */
 -	u64 min_value, max_value;
 +	s64 min_value;
 +	u64 max_value;
+ 	u32 id;
  	union {
  		/* valid when type == CONST_IMM | PTR_TO_STACK | UNKNOWN_VALUE */
  		s64 imm;