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

Message-ID: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:12:23 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next
 tree

Hi all,

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

  net/ipv4/tcp.c

between commit:

  7eeba1706eba ("tcp: Add receive timestamp support for receive zerocopy.")

from the net-next tree and commit:

  9cacf81f8161 ("bpf: Remove extra lock_sock for TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE")

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/ipv4/tcp.c
index e1a17c6b473c,26aa923cf522..000000000000
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@@ -4160,18 -4098,13 +4160,20 @@@ static int do_tcp_getsockopt(struct soc
  		if (copy_from_user(&zc, optval, len))
  			return -EFAULT;
  		lock_sock(sk);
 -		err = tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc);
 +		err = tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc, &tss);
+ 		err = BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT_KERN(sk, level, optname,
+ 							  &zc, &len, err);
  		release_sock(sk);
 -		if (len >= offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, err))
 -			goto zerocopy_rcv_sk_err;
 +		if (len >= offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_flags))
 +			goto zerocopy_rcv_cmsg;
  		switch (len) {
 +		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_flags):
 +			goto zerocopy_rcv_cmsg;
 +		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_controllen):
 +		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, msg_control):
 +		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, flags):
 +		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, copybuf_len):
 +		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, copybuf_address):
  		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, err):
  			goto zerocopy_rcv_sk_err;
  		case offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, inq):

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped