linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2033 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

  271de525e1d7 ("bpf: Remove prog->active check for bpf_lsm and bpf_iter")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  b2e9dfe54be4 ("x86/bpf: Emit call depth accounting if required")

from the tip 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/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index cec5195602bc,f46b62029d91..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@@ -11,8 -11,8 +11,9 @@@
  #include <linux/bpf.h>
  #include <linux/memory.h>
  #include <linux/sort.h>
 +#include <linux/init.h>
  #include <asm/extable.h>
+ #include <asm/ftrace.h>
  #include <asm/set_memory.h>
  #include <asm/nospec-branch.h>
  #include <asm/text-patching.h>
@@@ -1930,7 -1869,7 +1948,7 @@@ static int invoke_bpf_prog(const struc
  	/* arg2: lea rsi, [rbp - ctx_cookie_off] */
  	EMIT4(0x48, 0x8D, 0x75, -run_ctx_off);
  
- 	if (emit_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_enter(p), prog))
 -	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, enter, prog))
++	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_enter(p), prog))
  		return -EINVAL;
  	/* remember prog start time returned by __bpf_prog_enter */
  	emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0);
@@@ -1975,7 -1914,7 +1993,7 @@@
  	emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6);
  	/* arg3: lea rdx, [rbp - run_ctx_off] */
  	EMIT4(0x48, 0x8D, 0x55, -run_ctx_off);
- 	if (emit_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_exit(p), prog))
 -	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, exit, prog))
++	if (emit_rsb_call(&prog, bpf_trampoline_exit(p), prog))
  		return -EINVAL;
  
  	*pprog = prog;

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 814 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

  e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable")

from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
so I just removed it) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1086 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
> 
>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable")
> 
> from the tip tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
> so I just removed it) 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.

Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/07/2018 06:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>>
>> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>>
>>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable")
>>
>> from the tip tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
>> so I just removed it) 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.
> 
> Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
> different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.

Yep, it's been cherry-picked into bpf-next to avoid merge conflicts with
ongoing work.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1468 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:15:45 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 05/07/2018 06:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:  
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
> >>
> >> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
> >>
> >>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable")
> >>
> >> from the tip tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
> >> so I just removed it) 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.  
> > 
> > Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
> > different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.  
> 
> Yep, it's been cherry-picked into bpf-next to avoid merge conflicts with
> ongoing work.

This is now a conflict between the net-next tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]