Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:39:01 +0200 | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree |
| |
On 04/18/2017 02:18 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > between commits: > > 6b1bb01bcc5b ("bpf: fix cb access in socket filter programs on tail calls") > c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") > > from the net tree and commit: > > e245c5c6a565 ("bpf: move fixup_bpf_calls() function") > 79741b3bdec0 ("bpf: refactor fixup_bpf_calls()") > > from the net-next tree. > > I fixed it up (the latter moved and changed teh code modified by the > former - I added the following fix up patch) 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. > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:16:03 +1000 > Subject: [PATCH] bpf: merge fix for move of fixup_bpf_calls() > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> > --- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index 62e1e447ded9..5939b4c81fe1 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -3349,6 +3349,14 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) > if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_xdp_adjust_head) > prog->xdp_adjust_head = 1; > if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) { > + /* If we tail call into other programs, we > + * cannot make any assumptions since they > + * can be replaced dynamically during runtime > + * in the program array. > + */ > + prog->cb_access = 1; > + prog->xdp_adjust_head = 1; > + > /* mark bpf_tail_call as different opcode to avoid > * conditional branch in the interpeter for every normal > * call and to prevent accidental JITing by JIT compiler >
Looks good, thanks.
| |