linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
between commit:
1e891e513e16 ("libbpf: Fix map index used in error message")
from Linus' tree and commit:
88a82120282b ("libbpf: Factor out common ELF operations and improve logging")
from the bpf-next tree.
I fixed it up (the latter included the fix from the former) 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
pgp8E2kQiBgLl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
between commit:
1d4126c4e119 ("libbpf: sanitize VAR to conservative 1-byte INT")
from Linus' tree and commit:
b03bc6853c0e ("libbpf: convert libbpf code to use new btf helpers")
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 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 2b57d7ea7836,3abf2dd1b3b5..
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@@ -1370,22 -1374,16 +1372,21 @@@ static void bpf_object__sanitize_btf(st
for (i = 1; i <= btf__get_nr_types(btf); i++) {
t = (struct btf_type *)btf__type_by_id(btf, i);
- kind = BTF_INFO_KIND(t->info);
- if (!has_datasec && kind == BTF_KIND_VAR) {
+ if (!has_datasec && btf_is_var(t)) {
/* replace VAR with INT */
t->info = BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_INT, 0, 0);
- t->size = sizeof(int);
- *(int *)(t + 1) = BTF_INT_ENC(0, 0, 32);
+ /*
+ * using size = 1 is the safest choice, 4 will be too
+ * big and cause kernel BTF validation failure if
+ * original variable took less than 4 bytes
+ */
+ t->size = 1;
- *(int *)(t+1) = BTF_INT_ENC(0, 0, 8);
- } else if (!has_datasec && kind == BTF_KIND_DATASEC) {
++ *(int *)(t + 1) = BTF_INT_ENC(0, 0, 8);
+ } else if (!has_datasec && btf_is_datasec(t)) {
/* replace DATASEC with STRUCT */
- struct btf_var_secinfo *v = (void *)(t + 1);
- struct btf_member *m = (void *)(t + 1);
+ const struct btf_var_secinfo *v = btf_var_secinfos(t);
+ struct btf_member *m = btf_members(t);
struct btf_type *vt;
char *name;
pgpe8B4UKHkXa.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
between commits:
7640ead93924 ("bpf: verifier: make sure callees don't prune with caller
differences")
14507e35bd9d ("selftests: bpf: verifier: add tests for JSET interpretation")
from Linus' tree and commit:
5a8d5209ac02 ("selftests: bpf: add trivial JSET tests")
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 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index c3b799c1ee97,dbd31750b214..
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@@ -14098,34 -14169,198 +14169,225 @@@ static struct bpf_test tests[] =
.errstr = "invalid bpf_context access",
.errstr_unpriv = "R1 leaks addr",
.result = REJECT,
+ },
+ "calls: cross frame pruning",
+ .insns = {
+ /* r8 = !!random();
+ * call pruner()
+ * if (r8)
+ * do something bad;
+ */
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_8, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_8, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 1, 0, 4),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_8, 1, 1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "function calls to other bpf functions are
allowed for root only",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "!read_ok",
+ .result = REJECT,
},
+ {
+ "jset: functional",
+ .insns = {
+ /* r0 = 0 */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* prep for direct packet access via r2 */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data_end)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_2),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_4, 8),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLE, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_3, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_2, 0),
+
+ /* reg, bit 63 or bit 0 set, taken */
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_8, 0x8001),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JSET, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_8, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+
+ /* reg, bit 62, not taken */
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_8, 0x4000),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JSET, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_8, 1),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+
+ /* imm, any bit set, taken */
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSET, BPF_REG_7, -1, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+
+ /* imm, bit 31 set, taken */
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSET, BPF_REG_7, 0x8000, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+
+ /* all good - return r0 == 2 */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .runs = 7,
+ .retvals = {
+ { .retval = 2,
+ .data64 = { (1ULL << 63) | (1U << 31) | (1U << 0), }
+ },
+ { .retval = 2,
+ .data64 = { (1ULL << 63) | (1U << 31), }
+ },
+ { .retval = 2,
+ .data64 = { (1ULL << 31) | (1U << 0), }
+ },
+
linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/lib/Makefile
between commit:
76b043848fd2 ("x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support")
from Linus' tree and commit:
540adea3809f ("error-injection: Separate error-injection from kprobe")
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 arch/x86/lib/Makefile
index f23934bbaf4e,171377b83be1..
--- a/arch/x86/lib/Makefile
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/Makefile
@@@ -26,7 -26,7 +26,8 @@@ lib-y += memcpy_$(BITS).
lib-$(CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM) += rwsem.o
lib-$(CONFIG_INSTRUCTION_DECODER) += insn.o inat.o insn-eval.o
lib-$(CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE) += kaslr.o
+lib-$(CONFIG_RETPOLINE) += retpoline.o
+ lib-$(CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION)+= error-inject.o
obj-y += msr.o msr-reg.o msr-reg-export.o hweight.o
