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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  net/core/filter.c

between commit:

  1227c1771dd2 ("net: Fix data-races around sysctl_[rw]mem_(max|default).")

from the net tree and commit:

  29003875bd5b ("bpf: Change bpf_setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET) to reuse sk_setsockopt()")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (I dropped the former patches changes to this file) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1885 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x

between commit:

  27e23836ce22 ("selftests/bpf: Add lru_bug to s390x deny list")

from the net tree and commit:

  1c636b6277a2 ("selftests/bpf: Add test cases for htab update")

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/DENYLIST.s390x
index 5cadfbdadf36,ba02b559ca68..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
@@@ -65,4 -65,7 +65,8 @@@ send_signa
  select_reuseport                         # intermittently fails on new s390x setup
  xdp_synproxy                             # JIT does not support calling kernel function                                (kfunc)
  unpriv_bpf_disabled                      # fentry
 +lru_bug                                  # prog 'printk': failed to auto-attach: -524
+ setget_sockopt                           # attach unexpected error: -524                                               (trampoline)
+ cb_refs                                  # expected error message unexpected error: -524                               (trampoline)
+ cgroup_hierarchical_stats                # JIT does not support calling kernel function                                (kfunc)
+ htab_update                              # failed to attach: ERROR: strerror_r(-524)=22                                (trampoline)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  include/linux/bpf.h

between commit:

  1f6e04a1c7b8 ("bpf: Fix offset calculation error in __copy_map_value and zero_map_value")

from the net tree and commit:

  e5feed0f64f7 ("bpf: Fix copy_map_value, zero_map_value")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1247 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  kernel/bpf/arena.c

between commit:

  ee498a38f317 ("bpf: Clarify bpf_arena comments.")

from the net tree and commit:

  45a683b2d815 ("bpf,arena: Use helper sizeof_field in struct accessors")

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 kernel/bpf/arena.c
index 343c3456c8dd,af5cae640669..000000000000
--- a/kernel/bpf/arena.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/arena.c
@@@ -37,8 -37,8 +37,8 @@@
   */
  
  /* number of bytes addressable by LDX/STX insn with 16-bit 'off' field */
- #define GUARD_SZ (1ull << sizeof(((struct bpf_insn *)0)->off) * 8)
+ #define GUARD_SZ (1ull << sizeof_field(struct bpf_insn, off) * 8)
 -#define KERN_VM_SZ ((1ull << 32) + GUARD_SZ)
 +#define KERN_VM_SZ (SZ_4G + GUARD_SZ)
  
  struct bpf_arena {
  	struct bpf_map map;

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:55 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/bpf/arena.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   ee498a38f317 ("bpf: Clarify bpf_arena comments.")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
>   45a683b2d815 ("bpf,arena: Use helper sizeof_field in struct accessors")
>
> 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.

Thanks for headsup.
We'll fix it up when bpf-next gets ffwded in a day or two.

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2121 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got conflicts in:

  include/linux/filter.h
  kernel/bpf/core.c

between commit:

  66e13b615a0c ("bpf: verifier: prevent userspace memory access")

from the net tree and commit:

  d503a04f8bc0 ("bpf: Add support for certain atomics in bpf_arena to x86 JIT")

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 include/linux/filter.h
index 42dbceb04ca6,7a27f19bf44d..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@@ -975,7 -1000,7 +1000,8 @@@ bool bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call(vo
  bool bpf_jit_supports_exceptions(void);
  bool bpf_jit_supports_ptr_xchg(void);
  bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void);
 +u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void);
+ bool bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena);
  void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp), void *cookie);
  bool bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(void *func);
  
diff --cc kernel/bpf/core.c
index a04695ca82b9,95c7fd093e55..000000000000
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@@ -2958,15 -2965,11 +2965,20 @@@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_arena(void
  	return false;
  }
  
 +u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
 +{
 +#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
 +	return TASK_SIZE;
 +#else
 +	return 0;
 +#endif
 +}
 +
+ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
+ {
+ 	return false;
+ }
+ 
  /* Return TRUE if the JIT backend satisfies the following two conditions:
   * 1) JIT backend supports atomic_xchg() on pointer-sized words.
   * 2) Under the specific arch, the implementation of xchg() is the same

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:49:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>  +u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
>  +{
>  +#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
>  +	return TASK_SIZE;
>  +#else
>  +	return 0;
>  +#endif
>  +}
>  +
> + bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
> + {
> + 	return false;
> + }

Thanks! FTR I plan to used the inverse order, if that matters..

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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 4/29/24 8:56 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:49:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>   +u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
>>   +{
>>   +#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
>>   +	return TASK_SIZE;
>>   +#else
>>   +	return 0;
>>   +#endif
>>   +}
>>   +
>> + bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
>> + {
>> + 	return false;
>> + }
> 
> Thanks! FTR I plan to used the inverse order, if that matters..

Yeap, that looks cleaner, same for the signature in the header given the others
prefixed with bpf_jit_supports_*.

Thanks,
Daniel