From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131CFC433DB for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:13:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88E264DD6 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229901AbhBNVNf (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:13:35 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58870 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229642AbhBNVNf (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:13:35 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14394C061574; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:12:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Df0Lr0jNYz9s1l; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:12:51 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1613337173; bh=heAwTC7GM5oZhn35ydvwxDvP3AVScWf/Lw91PP/LHtw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LBaeyeerjeYCfDegUMxcg+EvnmIaXNyDZpuHAaWOBBPGHZLgniCkqyvcX+32Vm66A B/V1/nl/yuBl1ETOh41CzLNuEvj7rGtg5/kL5trBO68FkKszsiWRqzOPj+1wZLLR14 M69+ZqSuWoyGhOgRnU31yeQYO4DDcc1vsxbU0yDpnAkvz05SZJEaGr3qMRIVgzPXsA zQYIyFO1IyqT2VEK20wBtwhbqTr4dyr6TtTfEEcomcRpXKxyL1gfrCRegcDm+cX2sH hOqaEJ1SMxVnrLjIorMevsyj7vaBrv7Ovdg7b1ZEOC8qyVeZoeDyHPCFGhEMtS6l0F +ADod1SuGkJ3Q== Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:12:50 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , David Miller , Networking Cc: Arjun Roy , Jakub Kicinski , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Stanislav Fomichev Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree Message-ID: <20210215081250.19bc8921@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/oRD_PR_AcP8WZx1lBSo5l0F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/oRD_PR_AcP8WZx1lBSo5l0F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:12:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell = wrote: >=20 > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: >=20 > net/ipv4/tcp.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > 7eeba1706eba ("tcp: Add receive timestamp support for receive zerocopy.= ") >=20 > from the net-next tree and commit: >=20 > 9cacf81f8161 ("bpf: Remove extra lock_sock for TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE") >=20 > from the bpf-next tree. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 =3D tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc); > + err =3D tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc, &tss); > + err =3D BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT_KERN(sk, level, optname, > + &zc, &len, err); > release_sock(sk); > - if (len >=3D offsetofend(struct tcp_zerocopy_receive, err)) > - goto zerocopy_rcv_sk_err; > + if (len >=3D 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): With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this conflict still exists. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/oRD_PR_AcP8WZx1lBSo5l0F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmApklIACgkQAVBC80lX 0GwVrQf8DfYze7Pz5Wl5aIUiKJfYVXgLEgqctp/06iv/FvxwfACJNTnF3Zly7BX3 Z7Iltesm8n7XAyaCsfcte+ICkiLMCkE0XlHPM3uj9Xy5BxojNhQkpN0ymdiU3QWj N8mnem8QubZnANKoqNiL/YZPSssKeqKKyuMx98z34aNVIRVT3t8rojAZ0dJze2sJ AIkLN5QTlYRdFqpdaWNK7vWERObay3cf4Wkbh578vYYTuIMsAEUL3g1Jhum4cZD5 K+zoavnrhOt0MHBvkcsnqRQ3/zP41iDp1Xw9p+8WctTuEW8cRMbN+TrjXmzt4I67 U3/MxFkC8Z+4dMqe8S6hzAV6i5EIkg== =nY0U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/oRD_PR_AcP8WZx1lBSo5l0F--