From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EE992F25; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 01:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718327274; cv=none; b=WzHtMweS3RyFMNjwoIXkwoXgUGaAjbeS9KtqU3jRYM0GkXcu+u++CPPkc+4cFgV5Z6EpU5cUi2KSMeDrqBUViZWvywLi6IXouBZDE25LUVn/Mrje9qTXTBNKnoqqNIEWy3CnsOwmI9iHF3+jDR03AzonKx7phWigR4QWgfZnJgM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718327274; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GwS7Y56Lx+fE/+Y9/JVAXhP3402AVgK8FgY1QgvObb8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=ADUjArzAOR/X01c7dN/Pf6DNPd8EVozrxoo9NJ+lMe+p1uiwyePXoxHTqjO9LWFP4rx+WY4PKX8v/RzSn8CcQOcbjXJMtr2o30lsr32qzAPEl4IJnX8yEOiQ257EhFbIwhnembdBGmbMMqqeI/iQPE+9OX3TgFvb1wbmja6kSz8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=HB4EC0v9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="HB4EC0v9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21DCAC2BBFC; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 01:07:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1718327273; bh=GwS7Y56Lx+fE/+Y9/JVAXhP3402AVgK8FgY1QgvObb8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HB4EC0v9hTVYXkIe3354UyWHM3bLX7Cu5VMpybrzLJ0EDJVGrNSx7Mumr9qWwoWKZ QF4jyLQoatMECNM/tb0cRo21UFz93wzZx2H2f9o4WIZW95ITenBozy0Z4SjT24fBX6 Z2hcf9QdyW2KYFhgBvdhy690qSOMfP4+xLVzmH73DpSxgUsOh9WvGz3198OMdR8Yfd 6jxw5Itn1xOYuLsFYsNPhLPJXDdyLfZj/aOcnvUDAWvOkok+b8LOiWN4g1EL0B3Yms g4d5pvVElCT4LAjDnyFBV25cvudTzX1ST3y6LVt7M5ih64z8o8dE48mxYheLFy3Q1g 60g2NjjFf4nWw== Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:07:48 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jiri Olsa , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Christian Brauner , Christian =?UTF-8?B?R8O2dHRzY2hl?= , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Michael Ellerman , Mark Brown Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree Message-Id: <20240614100748.fcaa7efe6debea3801682ba1@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20240614090523.246f48e4@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20240613114243.2a50059b@canb.auug.org.au> <20240614090523.246f48e4@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:05:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jiri, > > [Cc'd Mark Brown and Michael Ellerman just in case they decide to do > linux-next releases whil I am away.] > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:07:54 +0200 Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:42:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got conflicts in: > > > > > > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl > > > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls") > > > > > > from the vfs-brauner tree and commit: > > > > > > 190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call") > > > > > > from the ftrace 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/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl > > > index 26af003921d2,6452c2ec469a..000000000000 > > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl > > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl > > > @@@ -385,10 -384,7 +385,11 @@@ > > > 460 common lsm_set_self_attr sys_lsm_set_self_attr > > > 461 common lsm_list_modules sys_lsm_list_modules > > > 462 common mseal sys_mseal > > > -463 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe > > > +463 common setxattrat sys_setxattrat > > > +464 common getxattrat sys_getxattrat > > > +465 common listxattrat sys_listxattrat > > > +466 common removexattrat sys_removexattrat > > > ++467 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe > > > > > > # > > > # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently > > > diff --cc include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > > > index 5b8dab0b934e,2378f88d5ad4..000000000000 > > > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > > > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > > > @@@ -845,17 -845,11 +845,20 @@@ __SYSCALL(__NR_lsm_list_modules, sys_ls > > > #define __NR_mseal 462 > > > __SYSCALL(__NR_mseal, sys_mseal) > > > > > > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463 > > > +#define __NR_setxattrat 463 > > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_setxattrat, sys_setxattrat) > > > +#define __NR_getxattrat 464 > > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_getxattrat, sys_getxattrat) > > > +#define __NR_listxattrat 465 > > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_listxattrat, sys_listxattrat) > > > +#define __NR_removexattrat 466 > > > +__SYSCALL(__NR_removexattrat, sys_removexattrat) > > > + > > > ++#define __NR_uretprobe 467 > > > + __SYSCALL(__NR_uretprobe, sys_uretprobe) > > > > hi, > > we need one more change in tests (below), otherwise lgtm > > I can send formal patch for you if needed, plz let me know > > > > thanks, > > jirka > > > > > > --- > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > index c8517c8f5313..bd8c75b620c2 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_uretprobe_regs_change(void) > > } > > > > #ifndef __NR_uretprobe > > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463 > > +#define __NR_uretprobe 467 > > #endif > > > > __naked unsigned long uretprobe_syscall_call_1(void) > > Or you could change __NR_uretprobe in the patch set to 467, then this > will become just a conflict and not a renumbering. OK, Jiri, can you send it to me. I will update probes/for-next. Thank you, > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google)