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

Hi all,

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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):

Thanks, the merge resolution looks good to me!

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:12 PM Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:12 PM Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi all,

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.

The fix looks good, thank you.

-Arjun

Hi all,

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:12:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this
conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:13 PM Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi all,

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:12:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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

Hi Arjun,

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:40:38 -0800 Arjun Roy [off-list ref] wrote:

Sorry, I was confused from the prior email. Is any action required at
the moment, or not?

No.  This is just something that the net-next and bpf-next maintainers
need to sort out when they merge their trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell