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,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 2E604C433DB for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:41:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF69664D99 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230028AbhBNVlh (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:41:37 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36570 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229827AbhBNVlf (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:41:35 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1531FC061574 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:40:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id nm1so2584049pjb.3 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:40:50 -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=PiG6cYoVsBFCEBxVL/MHzdKRIBPAg+eCl4dTqw4n41o=; b=hR0QP9L9vXHRLCGVv4CmmoNvHih4aDAmCL/YFKNhdrXKHRBmLrOrp8+0nfeauwgRBA 99RKyjgRdcWAXGfM7rubvvxsyuoUHn9TFohn4RQjtapAsYm8sT+ZRX6GfHWpa/3aJNV4 EYzRT3vvx4h84CbaTpZOHSzYqG/1o9G+1WCET0lWEuFXGT/0PqobgCic8ynnvnPQTtij noWtNnjWu7ev2qZCZkh2i+r0h+FYDo/8M1U1iRIX1u0BoY+MM2Zbv0/f34lUDSzkH1OH G59nKEhBFANPj88fkej01MbTGm1Is93aM+gN3bkPfrLXP0Zp0J+OeMjs6B+v4pOHTga0 tLDA== 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=PiG6cYoVsBFCEBxVL/MHzdKRIBPAg+eCl4dTqw4n41o=; b=W3EUlIkCo/yshgEVYgG1xcD4IAEif9XuSXW1XPzuoTyiJ6WPtKUVcFwB0IAGNE6DEN GlXyjHK4yxVPMWAJezEygTIzWknBewzZMByX5bOHggUfC9R+RJ90KQC/ZdOw4oythWpw OEea/JwGweBnVQ4/euBYv7q46O6Ne4K01LthPUnhhH8jn8Ntv2vfr78gDTmroC74wc0L GLTj/cn2gQAi8WQUrEZzlMpNWTrEMG+BHi9DGm5ksYtWpnT9E69qVLT+SvlYW8XVw2m/ 3+S9/hiAQRTGvLM4yehi2/W49dMTQ0+zs50//bMp3FGNUGlkrJR1lk0WGIH5uJ3XkyI+ YtkA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Z+fM3VrWSldiETFhJsGhJA7z2sY3yf5gVXWDGmHYQSws2LIfU zw68k3C6kLCmLmeQpTw0dAV+7PVFEKWX/oAwmR7L2R4QG40= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwbaMnJq9+uWRBDq60rh+blroXEPgnFdWwqqdaQzQ2UGXLZ6zmWeP26EPkd2ceb5KbOQglxK0zu1EXa5QSSmfQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4b02:: with SMTP id lx2mr13268074pjb.178.1613338849352; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:40:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210125111223.2540294c@canb.auug.org.au> <20210215081250.19bc8921@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20210215081250.19bc8921@canb.auug.org.au> From: Arjun Roy Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:40:38 -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-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:13 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:12:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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): > > With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this > conflict still exists. > Sorry, I was confused from the prior email. Is any action required at the moment, or not? Thanks, -Arjun > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell