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=-18.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 1194EC433DB for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3885221E9 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729914AbhAYQKz (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:10:55 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38512 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730610AbhAYQKc (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:10:32 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD01BC061786 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:09:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id r9so9991192qtp.11 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:09:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q8bxUP4SZLC7pRMbVLxdU+OOQgW0ishf2aucQ47lV0g=; b=CSL31hCUQXPjH3ulEF0/gUF6JbaFvZ8v9/Q4qwzK142bF6wJZ841wdymvwRUMlVMSA 9YV4h8k7ArrTGRwMH/650FwwfI+F0juz3IgcwA0LooUGNhJYYNpSHMaRwt5OZyDZWn7L xurgpX0TFeple36KrsmxypbJ3VCHrjEoaMXEmRhQsuZcuJwZ2O9SZsobmt1AyIl4Kc4I uD7AwGNsriyD52r7sn72OTLXLdjcOsdj2I/kou6TTLiwCmimLn00usup7f7x6s08rx8G S1esD7sHjj1dCQAhjTuzGlvzwKmqQ+JQZ/hwiGp0dBcyvaFwDH0Yh5RmXFIkU0W3B1za LQJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q8bxUP4SZLC7pRMbVLxdU+OOQgW0ishf2aucQ47lV0g=; b=E5uQPS4Uhj+ilaB8aGaVOR41kBoN9UIyxFkwkX6gdjCex3MMo371CbcW2rKHng4gLu Nl22syWCG9El/hRle7+QFTHnunmQzfsu1dq4WyLkl8ydK2f/sPsgK128AnGjaSduvVvl WJiey+JZ9zbubzxBZirvWcTx1RC5lPEFjPE/QE58+wH3YcMF8HsFy+MbJHaWuzykKVr/ JfcT9iaG0ajAWN1lS2wQ+ugQgrl9XRTnj888wptTVEm9pQ0826D71xMyGWSzWcqNT1lO haXBwc18ZGoGV5HR2C3MY8+2oN9zXM8s9M3yqHBUUdV0WVHuo0m7twjVqVbljcsfh0x7 8d9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DliBF6E6MemGTUvXrR/PPUwGdqvHc347IjOX/fJSfixwwBKQk oepo809s5mn0/I1DzCxnUamvGijG5N95oIhB1o7Y+g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBsfakB8gLLdz6SY+yyV1zer6olHzaJbEO7s+UAtcDNd57y1jVlnVklvpEFpZR85DtcJhRL6jiH3rPp3wM2OE= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5bc2:: with SMTP id b2mr1154243qtb.98.1611590990621; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:09:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> From: Stanislav Fomichev Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:09:06 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , David Miller , Networking , Arjun Roy , Jakub Kicinski , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org Thanks, the merge resolution looks good to me! On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:12 PM Stephen Rothwell 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. > > -- > 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):