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

Message-ID: <20181204120936.77cd82a9@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:09:36 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>,
        Vlad Dumitrescu <vladum@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree

Hi all,

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

  net/core/filter.c

between commit:

  b7df9ada9a77 ("bpf: fix pointer offsets in context for 32 bit")

from the bpf tree and commit:

  e3da08d05700 ("bpf: allow BPF read access to qdisc pkt_len")

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 net/core/filter.c
index 8659b40172d1,3d54af4c363d..000000000000
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@@ -5771,9 -5770,10 +5771,10 @@@ static bool sk_filter_is_valid_access(i
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data_meta):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data_end):
 -	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
 +	case bpf_ctx_range_ptr(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
  	case bpf_ctx_range_till(struct __sk_buff, family, local_port):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, tstamp):
+ 	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, wire_len):
  		return false;
  	}
  
@@@ -5797,7 -5797,8 +5798,8 @@@ static bool cg_skb_is_valid_access(int 
  	switch (off) {
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, tc_classid):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data_meta):
 -	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
 +	case bpf_ctx_range_ptr(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
+ 	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, wire_len):
  		return false;
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data_end):
@@@ -5842,8 -5843,9 +5844,9 @@@ static bool lwt_is_valid_access(int off
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, tc_classid):
  	case bpf_ctx_range_till(struct __sk_buff, family, local_port):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data_meta):
 -	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
 +	case bpf_ctx_range_ptr(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, tstamp):
+ 	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, wire_len):
  		return false;
  	}
  
@@@ -6272,8 -6274,9 +6275,9 @@@ static bool sk_skb_is_valid_access(int 
  	switch (off) {
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, tc_classid):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, data_meta):
 -	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
 +	case bpf_ctx_range_ptr(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
  	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, tstamp):
+ 	case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, wire_len):
  		return false;
  	}
  

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped