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=unavailable 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 96774C433E0 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8EA22583 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731219AbhAYSLH (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:11:07 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35100 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731385AbhAYSEO (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:04:14 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82AB3C061797 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:03:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id u4so72434pjn.4 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:03:34 -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=1pJ/Zg4ITbpnJw71WkGTelTq5ONDoCLkdhBdvVCe5i4=; b=k+KsWO2X4iS3aQW0u2AustK5TvQV3i7HDSLpoN2SKTpgi2Cg1iDN3/xQWKhErdpfg7 QHVwRoJHJi9HP1UDsT1vPCaYjFAvbL7/w0refH8FvCVOfCSmaBZQVF7xcpuygh5BJG/h zeImed+1NT7e9sv9w1rcprQaGeQMIpTfJyHbCU24COqaNF4pubMfYHdIUBPajTTB9obw Ki40OU0c1SsW5Y/uaREqbLRNwDT3q/hkhxGYzwPjRB4SkcuD56axUKkS59J8q2jr+WvS a5xqHXyzy+Bl/sa8FJGv+7eJ8uHrkGLPrAZiO9o9KXthrQHHXF6wbMWbLDKciwrSdyFO oFZA== 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=1pJ/Zg4ITbpnJw71WkGTelTq5ONDoCLkdhBdvVCe5i4=; b=C+e1MzrxpbixrEswej/w0WkE9pBU1nKXYpx6TXrX1yj/UlzMucthlD6OO3G5TeaWbC yAGESowJE5tngZkcfVyTt0q3KBMrJbdvQKBZWZGfvcOth6u3vpQkMpDa9K9sjBe9Azu1 o+mk5M3ts5lBYjEollavyMoFJHpOJa/MisRTBHcsjlLigPbs2HGfrjh0LMId2u8/dMhF GWEQH8GLz4crmypStDI7IIn0/ugeX2ZEv1CyPTuqyTGd5O6VybLWn6Kz7jMughxCJQBQ jwv/bhBQtTbWHnclswrVINgtrLzewwxYbinSkRBqT1dxXByvX8FYopzsNp8PDSd06WeQ H30A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53353JCccS9F868+4BkmPK2fgR73jL+sXLMkN2VbRYYtCM7ncsgf ReQNSTKVbnE+q/WSo/aZR9AgQEr1TZi/qL2qhfZuFQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhTFp/J1wD7mLm9mReeYAHLE1jxITaDZV7Ek3501Dq5sv45lD9qOFynyiG2hL1//FGjgYTzzNjuYIJhIUamkw= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:aa8b:b029:da:ef22:8675 with SMTP id d11-20020a170902aa8bb02900daef228675mr1620975plr.15.1611597813990; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:03:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> From: Arjun Roy Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:03:23 -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 , Jakub Kicinski , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Stanislav Fomichev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org 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. > The fix looks good, thank you. -Arjun > -- > 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):