netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the risc-v 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240718095918.5684ebf0@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:59:18 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov
 <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf
 <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel
 Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>, Pu
 Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>, Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the risc-v
 tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:26:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:33:50 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   51781ce8f448 ("riscv: Pass patch_text() the length in bytes")
> > 
> > from the risc-v tree and commit:
> > 
> >   9f1e16fb1fc9 ("riscv, bpf: Fix out-of-bounds issue when preparing trampoline image")
> > 
> > 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 arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > index 7a34e5b44fc4,351e1484205e..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > @@@ -16,7 -16,8 +16,9 @@@
> >   #include "bpf_jit.h"
> >   
> >   #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
> >  +#define RV_FENTRY_NBYTES (RV_FENTRY_NINSNS * 4)
> > + /* imm that allows emit_imm to emit max count insns */
> > + #define RV_MAX_COUNT_IMM 0x7FFF7FF7FF7FF7FF
> >   
> >   #define RV_REG_TCC RV_REG_A6
> >   #define RV_REG_TCC_SAVED RV_REG_S6 /* Store A6 in S6 if program do calls */  
> 
> This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and the net-next tree.

And now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped