netdev - 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 04:40:20 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux-Next Mailing List" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree



> On May 1, 2018, at 7:09 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/test_progs.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>  a4e21ff8d9a3 ("bpf: minor fix to selftest test_stacktrace_build_id()")
> 
> from the bpf tree and commit:
> 
>  79b453501310 ("tools/bpf: add a test for bpf_get_stack with tracepoint prog")
> 
> 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/test_progs.c
> index fac581f1c57f,aa336f0abebc..000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> @@@ -1137,9 -1193,14 +1193,14 @@@ static void test_stacktrace_build_id(vo
>  		  err, errno))
>  		goto disable_pmu;
> 
> + 	stack_amap_fd = bpf_find_map(__func__, obj, "stack_amap");
> + 	if (CHECK(stack_amap_fd < 0, "bpf_find_map stack_amap",
> + 		  "err %d errno %d\n", err, errno))
> + 		goto disable_pmu;
> + 
>  	assert(system("dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/zero count=4 2> /dev/null")
>  	       == 0);
> -	assert(system("./urandom_read if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/zero count=4 2> /dev/null") == 0);
> +	assert(system("./urandom_read") == 0);
>  	/* disable stack trace collection */
>  	key = 0;
>  	val = 1;
> @@@ -1188,8 -1249,15 +1249,15 @@@
>  		previous_key = key;
>  	} while (bpf_map_get_next_key(stackmap_fd, &previous_key, &key) == 0);
> 
> - 	CHECK(build_id_matches < 1, "build id match",
> - 	      "Didn't find expected build ID from the map\n");
> + 	if (CHECK(build_id_matches < 1, "build id match",
> -		  "Didn't find expected build ID from the map"))
> ++		  "Didn't find expected build ID from the map\n"))

^^^  Is there a "+" at the beginning of this line? 

Thanks,
Song

> + 		goto disable_pmu;
> + 
> + 	stack_trace_len = PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH
> + 		* sizeof(struct bpf_stack_build_id);
> + 	err = compare_stack_ips(stackmap_fd, stack_amap_fd, stack_trace_len);
> + 	CHECK(err, "compare_stack_ips stackmap vs. stack_amap",
> + 	      "err %d errno %d\n", err, errno);
> 
>  disable_pmu:
>  	ioctl(pmu_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE);