Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1584302 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-20 02:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-20 10:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-02-20 02:30 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> - 2017-02-20 10:50 +0100
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 02:30 +0100 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree |
| Message-ID | <tcKXD-6nh-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
kernel/extable.c
between commit:
74451e66d516 ("bpf: make jited programs visible in traces")
from the net-next tree and commit:
5b485629ba0d ("kprobes, extable: Identify kprobes trampolines as kernel text area")
from the tip 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 kernel/extable.c
index bd82117ad424,e1359474baa5..000000000000
--- a/kernel/extable.c
+++ b/kernel/extable.c
@@@ -20,7 -20,7 +20,8 @@@
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/mutex.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/filter.h>
+ #include <linux/kprobes.h>
#include <asm/sections.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@@ -105,8 -105,8 +106,10 @@@ int __kernel_text_address(unsigned lon
return 1;
if (is_ftrace_trampoline(addr))
return 1;
+ if (is_bpf_text_address(addr))
+ return 1;
+ if (is_kprobe_optinsn_slot(addr) || is_kprobe_insn_slot(addr))
+ return 1;
/*
* There might be init symbols in saved stacktraces.
* Give those symbols a chance to be printed in
@@@ -128,8 -128,8 +131,10 @@@ int kernel_text_address(unsigned long a
return 1;
if (is_ftrace_trampoline(addr))
return 1;
+ if (is_bpf_text_address(addr))
+ return 1;
+ if (is_kprobe_optinsn_slot(addr) || is_kprobe_insn_slot(addr))
+ return 1;
return 0;
}
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 10:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tcSLw-2W4-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1584302 |
On 02/20/2017 02:22 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/extable.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 74451e66d516 ("bpf: make jited programs visible in traces")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
> 5b485629ba0d ("kprobes, extable: Identify kprobes trampolines as kernel text area")
>
> from the tip 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.
Looks good to me, thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web