netdev - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:03:23 -0800
From:   Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        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: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:12 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:
>
>   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.
>

The fix looks good, thank you.

-Arjun

> --
> 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):