public inbox for linux-next@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
@ 2024-06-13  1:42 Stephen Rothwell
  2024-06-13  7:07 ` Jiri Olsa
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2024-06-13  1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Christian Brauner
  Cc: Christian Göttsche, Jiri Olsa, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2378 bytes --]

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)
+ 
  #undef __NR_syscalls
- #define __NR_syscalls 467
 -#define __NR_syscalls 464
++#define __NR_syscalls 468
  
  /*
   * 32 bit systems traditionally used different

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
  2024-06-13  1:42 linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2024-06-13  7:07 ` Jiri Olsa
  2024-06-13 23:05   ` Stephen Rothwell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-06-13  7:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stephen Rothwell
  Cc: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Christian Brauner,
	Christian Göttsche, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List

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)

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
  2024-06-13  7:07 ` Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-06-13 23:05   ` Stephen Rothwell
  2024-06-14  1:07     ` Masami Hiramatsu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2024-06-13 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jiri Olsa
  Cc: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Christian Brauner,
	Christian Göttsche, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List, Michael Ellerman, Mark Brown

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3608 bytes --]

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 <olsajiri@gmail.com> 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
  2024-06-13 23:05   ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2024-06-14  1:07     ` Masami Hiramatsu
  2024-07-02 17:06       ` Stephen Rothwell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2024-06-14  1:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stephen Rothwell
  Cc: Jiri Olsa, Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Christian Brauner,
	Christian Göttsche, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List, Michael Ellerman, Mark Brown

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:05:23 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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 <olsajiri@gmail.com> 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) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
  2024-06-14  1:07     ` Masami Hiramatsu
@ 2024-07-02 17:06       ` Stephen Rothwell
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2024-07-02 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Masami Hiramatsu (Google), Jiri Olsa, Steven Rostedt
  Cc: Christian Brauner, Christian Göttsche,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List,
	Michael Ellerman, Mark Brown

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4197 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:07:48 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:05:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:07:54 +0200 Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:42:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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)    
> > > 
> > > we need one more change in tests (below), otherwise lgtm
> > > I can send formal patch for you if needed, plz let me know
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 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.

So, is there any chance that the uretprobe syscall can change to 467 in
the ftrace tree, so we have no overlap in syscall numbers for all the
syscalls likely to be merged by Linus?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
@ 2024-07-17  3:21 Stephen Rothwell
  2024-07-19  0:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2024-07-17  3:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Christian Brauner,
	Arnd Bergmann
  Cc: Christian Göttsche, Jiri Olsa, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2288 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl

between commit:

  e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:

  190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call")
  63ded110979b ("uprobe: Change uretprobe syscall scope and number")

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.

I also added this patch due to commit (no in Linus' tree)

  4fe53bf2ba0a ("syscalls: add generic scripts/syscall.tbl")

rom: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:15:32 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call"

and "uprobe: Change uretprobe syscall scope and number"

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 scripts/syscall.tbl | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/scripts/syscall.tbl b/scripts/syscall.tbl
index 86b53c7a815b..c792b08e594d 100644
--- a/scripts/syscall.tbl
+++ b/scripts/syscall.tbl
@@ -406,3 +406,4 @@
 464	common	getxattrat			sys_getxattrat
 465	common	listxattrat			sys_listxattrat
 466	common	removexattrat			sys_removexattrat
+467	common	uretprobe			sys_uretprobe
-- 
2.43.0


-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
index 623d954f3afb,dabf1982de6d..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	common	setxattrat		sys_setxattrat
 +464	common	getxattrat		sys_getxattrat
 +465	common	listxattrat		sys_listxattrat
 +466	common	removexattrat		sys_removexattrat
+ 467	common	uretprobe		sys_uretprobe
  
  #
  # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 484 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
  2024-07-17  3:21 Stephen Rothwell
@ 2024-07-19  0:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2024-07-19  0:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christian Brauner
  Cc: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Arnd Bergmann,
	Christian Göttsche, Jiri Olsa, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2574 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:21:55 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e6873349f700 ("fs/xattr: add *at family syscalls")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> 
>   190fec72df4a ("uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call")
>   63ded110979b ("uprobe: Change uretprobe syscall scope and number")
> 
> 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.
> 
> I also added this patch due to commit (no in Linus' tree)
> 
>   4fe53bf2ba0a ("syscalls: add generic scripts/syscall.tbl")
> 
> rom: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:15:32 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call"
> 
> and "uprobe: Change uretprobe syscall scope and number"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  scripts/syscall.tbl | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/syscall.tbl b/scripts/syscall.tbl
> index 86b53c7a815b..c792b08e594d 100644
> --- a/scripts/syscall.tbl
> +++ b/scripts/syscall.tbl
> @@ -406,3 +406,4 @@
>  464	common	getxattrat			sys_getxattrat
>  465	common	listxattrat			sys_listxattrat
>  466	common	removexattrat			sys_removexattrat
> +467	common	uretprobe			sys_uretprobe
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
> diff --cc arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> index 623d954f3afb,dabf1982de6d..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	common	setxattrat		sys_setxattrat
>  +464	common	getxattrat		sys_getxattrat
>  +465	common	listxattrat		sys_listxattrat
>  +466	common	removexattrat		sys_removexattrat
> + 467	common	uretprobe		sys_uretprobe
>   
>   #
>   # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently

This is now a conflict between the vfs-brauner tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree
@ 2024-11-08  2:55 Stephen Rothwell
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2024-11-08  2:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Christian Brauner
  Cc: Alice Ryhl, Daniel Xu, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List, Wedson Almeida Filho

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  rust/helpers/helpers.c

between commit:

  851849824bb5 ("rust: file: add Rust abstraction for `struct file`")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:

  6e59bcc9c8ad ("rust: add static_branch_unlikely for static_key_false")

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 rust/helpers/helpers.c
index d553ad9361ce,17e1b60d178f..000000000000
--- a/rust/helpers/helpers.c
+++ b/rust/helpers/helpers.c
@@@ -11,9 -11,8 +11,10 @@@
  #include "bug.c"
  #include "build_assert.c"
  #include "build_bug.c"
 +#include "cred.c"
  #include "err.c"
 +#include "fs.c"
+ #include "jump_label.c"
  #include "kunit.c"
  #include "mutex.c"
  #include "page.c"

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2024-11-08  2:55 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-06-13  1:42 linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs-brauner tree Stephen Rothwell
2024-06-13  7:07 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-06-13 23:05   ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-06-14  1:07     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-07-02 17:06       ` Stephen Rothwell
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-07-17  3:21 Stephen Rothwell
2024-07-19  0:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-11-08  2:55 Stephen Rothwell

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox