Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1584302 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree

Started byStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
First post2017-02-20 02:30 +0100
Last post2017-02-20 10:50 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  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

#1584302 — linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2017-02-20 02:30 +0100
Subjectlinux-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]


#1584448

FromDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date2017-02-20 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