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

PATCH [email protected] 2 participants 2 messages Sep 27, 2022

Subsystems (2)

Linux-next tree objtool

lore

Share & tools

lore

[email protected]

author maintainer

2022-09-27 19:08 UTC #0 lore raw

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:

tools/objtool/check.c

between commit:

9440155ccb948 ("ftrace: Add HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

3c68a92d17add ("objtool: Disable CFI warnings")

from the kspp 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.

tools/objtool/check.c +0 -0

diff --cc tools/objtool/check.c
index fcc4d8ea8cec3,48e18737a2d18..0000000000000
@@@ -4124,7 -4118,7 +4128,8 @@@ static int validate_ibt(struct objtool_
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__ex_table")			||
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__jump_table")			||
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__mcount_loc")			||
 -		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))
++		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))			||
 +		    strstr(sec->name, "__patchable_function_entries"))
  			continue;
  
  		list_for_each_entry(reloc, &sec->reloc->reloc_list, list)

Kees Cook

2022-09-27 19:30 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 28 lines · On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 08:08:11PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:

Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
tools/objtool/check.c
between commit:
9440155ccb948 ("ftrace: Add HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE")
from the bpf-next tree and commit:
3c68a92d17add ("objtool: Disable CFI warnings")
from the kspp 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.
tools/objtool/check.c +0 -0
diff --cc tools/objtool/check.c
index fcc4d8ea8cec3,48e18737a2d18..0000000000000

tools/objtool/check.c

Quoted 9 lines

tools/objtool/check.c +1 -0

@@@ -4124,7 -4118,7 +4128,8 @@@ static int validate_ibt(struct objtool_
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__ex_table")			||
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__jump_table")			||
  		    !strcmp(sec->name, "__mcount_loc")			||
 -		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))
++		    !strcmp(sec->name, ".kcfi_traps"))			||
 +		    strstr(sec->name, "__patchable_function_entries"))
  			continue;
 
  		list_for_each_entry(reloc, &sec->reloc->reloc_list, list)

Thanks, yes; this matches what I had when I did a test merge yesterday too.

Signature · 1 line

Kees Cook