[pull] master from torvalds:master #82
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![pull[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12910?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
The cell name stored in the afs_cell struct is a 64-char + NUL buffer - when it needs to be able to handle up to AFS_MAXCELLNAME (256 chars) + NUL. Fix this by changing the array to a pointer and allocating the string. Found using Coverity. Fixes: 989782d ("afs: Overhaul cell database management") Reported-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
pull bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2021
… the next line
Fix checkpatch errors:
ERROR: open brace '{' following function definitions go on the next line
#54: FILE: spi-bitbang.c:54:
ERROR: open brace '{' following function definitions go on the next line
#82: FILE: spi-bitbang.c:82:
ERROR: open brace '{' following function definitions go on the next line
#110: FILE: spi-bitbang.c:110:
Signed-off-by: Jay Fang <f.fangjian@huawei.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1616566602-13894-8-git-send-email-f.fangjian@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
pull bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2022
Syscall #82 has been implemented for 32-bit platforms in a unique way on powerpc systems. This hack will in effect guess whether the caller is expecting new select semantics or old select semantics. It does so via a guess, based off the first parameter. In new select, this parameter represents the length of a user-memory array of file descriptors, and in old select this is a pointer to an arguments structure. The heuristic simply interprets sufficiently large values of its first parameter as being a call to old select. The following is a discussion on how this syscall should be handled. As discussed in this thread, the existence of such a hack suggests that for whatever powerpc binaries may predate glibc, it is most likely that they would have taken use of the old select semantics. x86 and arm64 both implement this syscall with oldselect semantics. Remove the powerpc implementation, and update syscall.tbl to refer to emit a reference to sys_old_select and compat_sys_old_select for 32-bit binaries, in keeping with how other architectures support syscall #82. Signed-off-by: Rohan McLure <rmclure@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/13737de5-0eb7-e881-9af0-163b0d29a1a0@csgroup.eu/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220921065605.1051927-12-rmclure@linux.ibm.com
pull bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2023
We can see that "Short form of movsx, dst_reg = (s8,s16,s32)src_reg" in include/linux/filter.h, additionally, for BPF_ALU64 the value of the destination register is unchanged whereas for BPF_ALU the upper 32 bits of the destination register are zeroed, so it should clear the upper 32 bits for BPF_ALU. [root@linux fedora]# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable [root@linux fedora]# modprobe test_bpf Before: test_bpf: #81 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) After: test_bpf: #81 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 6 PASS test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 6 PASS By the way, the bpf selftest case "./test_progs -t verifier_movsx" can also be fixed with this patch. Fixes: f48012f ("LoongArch: BPF: Support sign-extension mov instructions") Acked-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
pull bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2024
Recent additions in BPF like cpu v4 instructions, test_bpf module exhibits the following failures: test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #83 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #84 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #85 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #86 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_W jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #165 ALU_SDIV_X: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #166 ALU_SDIV_K: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #169 ALU_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #170 ALU_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #172 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 301 PASS test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 555 PASS test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 268 PASS test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 269 PASS test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 460 PASS test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 320 PASS test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 222 PASS test_bpf: #320 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 273 PASS test_bpf: #344 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_B eBPF filter opcode 0091 (@5) unsupported jited:0 432 PASS test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_H eBPF filter opcode 0089 (@5) unsupported jited:0 381 PASS test_bpf: #346 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W eBPF filter opcode 0081 (@5) unsupported jited:0 505 PASS test_bpf: #490 JMP32_JA: Unconditional jump: if (true) return 1 eBPF filter opcode 0006 (@1) unsupported jited:0 261 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1040 PASSED, 10 FAILED, [924/1038 JIT'ed] Fix them by adding missing processing. Fixes: daabb2b ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions") Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Link: https://msgid.link/91de862dda99d170697eb79ffb478678af7e0b27.1709652689.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See Commits and Changes for more details.
Created by
pull[bot]. Want to support this open source service? Please star it : )