[MERGE README] net --> net-next

[MERGE README] net --> net-next

[David Miller]

There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
'net' into 'net-next'.

In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.

The off-by-one stuff.  The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
of packet pointer checks.  And finally, the metadata stuff.

I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
by the interested parties.

Thank you.

Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
> 'net' into 'net-next'.
>
> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
>
> The off-by-one stuff.  The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
> of packet pointer checks.  And finally, the metadata stuff.
>
> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
> by the interested parties.

I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David!

Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 10/22/2017 03:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
>> 'net' into 'net-next'.
>>
>> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
>> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
>>
>> The off-by-one stuff.  The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
>> of packet pointer checks.  And finally, the metadata stuff.
>>
>> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
>> by the interested parties.
>
> I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David!

Looks good overall, I notices two things (in find_good_pkt_pointers()
in the second loop the max_t(u16, ...) still exists instead of just
max() in -net and in test_verifier the test cases for 'XDP pkt read'
are split in the middle with other test cases for bpf_exit). I'll send
a cleanup on Monday for this along with the matches for metadata part.

Thanks,
Daniel

Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next

[David Miller]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 21:41:33 +0200

> On 10/22/2017 03:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
>>> 'net' into 'net-next'.
>>>
>>> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
>>> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
>>>
>>> The off-by-one stuff.  The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
>>> of packet pointer checks.  And finally, the metadata stuff.
>>>
>>> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
>>> by the interested parties.
>>
>> I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David!
> 
> Looks good overall, I notices two things (in find_good_pkt_pointers()
> in the second loop the max_t(u16, ...) still exists instead of just
> max() in -net and in test_verifier the test cases for 'XDP pkt read'
> are split in the middle with other test cases for bpf_exit). I'll send
> a cleanup on Monday for this along with the matches for metadata part.

Thanks for taking a look, I was slightly stumped by the max_t() and decided
to keep it in the merge.  If both arms of the operation are u16 then indeed
it isn't necessary.

Thanks again!