linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the bpf-next tree
@ 2019-12-12  3:41 Stephen Rothwell
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-12-12  3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kees Cook, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking
  Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Stanislav Fomichev, Pankaj Bharadiya

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 736 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  net/bpf/test_run.c

between commit:

  b590cb5f802d ("bpf: Switch to offsetofend in BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  c593642c8be0 ("treewide: Use sizeof_field() macro")

from the kspp tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former version) 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 --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the bpf-next tree
  2022-09-27 19:08 broonie
@ 2022-09-27 19:30 ` Kees Cook
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2022-09-27 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: broonie
  Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Jiri Olsa, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List, Peter Zijlstra, Sami Tolvanen,
	Thomas Gleixner

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 08:08:11PM +0100, broonie@kernel.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/objtool/check.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   9440155ccb948 ("ftrace: Add HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
> 
>   3c68a92d17add ("objtool: Disable CFI warnings")
> 
> from the kspp 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.
> 
> diff --cc tools/objtool/check.c
> index fcc4d8ea8cec3,48e18737a2d18..0000000000000
> --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@@ -4124,7 -4118,7 +4128,8 @@@ static int validate_ibt(struct objtool_
>   		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__ex_table")			||
>   		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__jump_table")			||
>   		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__mcount_loc")			||
>  -		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))
> ++		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))			||
>  +		    strstr(sec->name, "__patchable_function_entries"))
>   			continue;
>   
>   		list_for_each_entry(reloc, &sec->reloc->reloc_list, list)

Thanks, yes; this matches what I had when I did a test merge yesterday
too.

-- 
Kees Cook

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the bpf-next tree
@ 2022-09-27 19:08 broonie
  2022-09-27 19:30 ` Kees Cook
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: broonie @ 2022-09-27 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kees Cook
  Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Jiri Olsa, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List, Peter Zijlstra, Sami Tolvanen,
	Thomas Gleixner

Hi all,

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

  tools/objtool/check.c

between commit:

  9440155ccb948 ("ftrace: Add HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  3c68a92d17add ("objtool: Disable CFI warnings")

from the kspp 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.

diff --cc tools/objtool/check.c
index fcc4d8ea8cec3,48e18737a2d18..0000000000000
--- a/tools/objtool/check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
@@@ -4124,7 -4118,7 +4128,8 @@@ static int validate_ibt(struct objtool_
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__ex_table")			||
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__jump_table")			||
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__mcount_loc")			||
 -		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))
++		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))			||
 +		    strstr(sec->name, "__patchable_function_entries"))
  			continue;
  
  		list_for_each_entry(reloc, &sec->reloc->reloc_list, list)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-27 19:30 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-12-12  3:41 linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the bpf-next tree Stephen Rothwell
2022-09-27 19:08 broonie
2022-09-27 19:30 ` Kees Cook

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).