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@xxxxxxxxx> 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:
pgpoAxiz7vyRw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
