From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941140AbcKPXvn (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:51:43 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:56049 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936546AbcKPXvk (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:51:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:51:38 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: David Miller , Networking Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik , Tobias Klauser Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree Message-ID: <20161117105138.0462666f@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: kernel/bpf/verifier.c between commit: f23cc643f9ba ("bpf: fix range arithmetic for bpf map access") from the net tree and commit: de464375daf0 ("bpf: Remove unused but set variables") from the net-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 kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 6a936159c6e0,89f787ca47ef..000000000000 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@@ -212,12 -229,13 +229,13 @@@ static void print_verifier_state(struc else if (t == CONST_PTR_TO_MAP || t == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE || t == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL || t == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ) - verbose("(ks=%d,vs=%d)", + verbose("(ks=%d,vs=%d,id=%u)", reg->map_ptr->key_size, - reg->map_ptr->value_size); + reg->map_ptr->value_size, + reg->id); if (reg->min_value != BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) - verbose(",min_value=%llu", - (unsigned long long)reg->min_value); + verbose(",min_value=%lld", + (long long)reg->min_value); if (reg->max_value != BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) verbose(",max_value=%llu", (unsigned long long)reg->max_value); @@@ -1477,9 -1498,7 +1499,8 @@@ static void adjust_reg_min_max_vals(str struct bpf_insn *insn) { struct bpf_reg_state *regs = env->cur_state.regs, *dst_reg; - u64 min_val = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE, max_val = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + s64 min_val = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; + u64 max_val = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; - bool min_set = false, max_set = false; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); dst_reg = ®s[insn->dst_reg];