linux-next: manual merge of the execve tree with the mm tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Hi all,

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

  include/linux/mm.h

between commits:

  99ab6f0a6854 ("mm/codetag: fix pgalloc_tag_split()")
  4d42ecdbd2fb ("mm/codetag: add pgalloc_tag_copy()")

from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:

  44f65d900698 ("binfmt_elf: mseal address zero")

from the execve 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 include/linux/mm.h
index 79d69e998649,a178c15812eb..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@@ -4148,61 -4201,14 +4148,71 @@@ void vma_pgtable_walk_end(struct vm_are
  
  int reserve_mem_find_by_name(const char *name, phys_addr_t *start, phys_addr_t *size);
  
 +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
 +static inline void pgalloc_tag_split(struct folio *folio, int old_order, int new_order)
 +{
 +	int i;
 +	struct alloc_tag *tag;
 +	unsigned int nr_pages = 1 << new_order;
 +
 +	if (!mem_alloc_profiling_enabled())
 +		return;
 +
 +	tag = pgalloc_tag_get(&folio->page);
 +	if (!tag)
 +		return;
 +
 +	for (i = nr_pages; i < (1 << old_order); i += nr_pages) {
 +		union codetag_ref *ref = get_page_tag_ref(folio_page(folio, i));
 +
 +		if (ref) {
 +			/* Set new reference to point to the original tag */
 +			alloc_tag_ref_set(ref, tag);
 +			put_page_tag_ref(ref);
 +		}
 +	}
 +}
 +
 +static inline void pgalloc_tag_copy(struct folio *new, struct folio *old)
 +{
 +	struct alloc_tag *tag;
 +	union codetag_ref *ref;
 +
 +	tag = pgalloc_tag_get(&old->page);
 +	if (!tag)
 +		return;
 +
 +	ref = get_page_tag_ref(&new->page);
 +	if (!ref)
 +		return;
 +
 +	/* Clear the old ref to the original allocation tag. */
 +	clear_page_tag_ref(&old->page);
 +	/* Decrement the counters of the tag on get_new_folio. */
 +	alloc_tag_sub(ref, folio_nr_pages(new));
 +
 +	__alloc_tag_ref_set(ref, tag);
 +
 +	put_page_tag_ref(ref);
 +}
 +#else /* !CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING */
 +static inline void pgalloc_tag_split(struct folio *folio, int old_order, int new_order)
 +{
 +}
 +
 +static inline void pgalloc_tag_copy(struct folio *new, struct folio *old)
 +{
 +}
 +#endif /* CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING */
 +
+ #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
+ int do_mseal(unsigned long start, size_t len_in, unsigned long flags);
+ #else
+ static inline int do_mseal(unsigned long start, size_t len_in, unsigned long flags)
+ {
+ 	/* noop on 32 bit */
+ 	return 0;
+ }
+ #endif
+ 
  #endif /* _LINUX_MM_H */

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the execve tree with the mm tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 months, 1 week ago

Hi all,

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 17:18:43 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the execve tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/mm.h
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   99ab6f0a6854 ("mm/codetag: fix pgalloc_tag_split()")
>   4d42ecdbd2fb ("mm/codetag: add pgalloc_tag_copy()")
> 
> from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   44f65d900698 ("binfmt_elf: mseal address zero")
> 
> from the execve 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 include/linux/mm.h
> index 79d69e998649,a178c15812eb..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@@ -4148,61 -4201,14 +4148,71 @@@ void vma_pgtable_walk_end(struct vm_are
>   
>   int reserve_mem_find_by_name(const char *name, phys_addr_t *start, phys_addr_t *size);
>   
>  +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
>  +static inline void pgalloc_tag_split(struct folio *folio, int old_order, int new_order)
>  +{
>  +	int i;
>  +	struct alloc_tag *tag;
>  +	unsigned int nr_pages = 1 << new_order;
>  +
>  +	if (!mem_alloc_profiling_enabled())
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	tag = pgalloc_tag_get(&folio->page);
>  +	if (!tag)
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	for (i = nr_pages; i < (1 << old_order); i += nr_pages) {
>  +		union codetag_ref *ref = get_page_tag_ref(folio_page(folio, i));
>  +
>  +		if (ref) {
>  +			/* Set new reference to point to the original tag */
>  +			alloc_tag_ref_set(ref, tag);
>  +			put_page_tag_ref(ref);
>  +		}
>  +	}
>  +}
>  +
>  +static inline void pgalloc_tag_copy(struct folio *new, struct folio *old)
>  +{
>  +	struct alloc_tag *tag;
>  +	union codetag_ref *ref;
>  +
>  +	tag = pgalloc_tag_get(&old->page);
>  +	if (!tag)
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	ref = get_page_tag_ref(&new->page);
>  +	if (!ref)
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	/* Clear the old ref to the original allocation tag. */
>  +	clear_page_tag_ref(&old->page);
>  +	/* Decrement the counters of the tag on get_new_folio. */
>  +	alloc_tag_sub(ref, folio_nr_pages(new));
>  +
>  +	__alloc_tag_ref_set(ref, tag);
>  +
>  +	put_page_tag_ref(ref);
>  +}
>  +#else /* !CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING */
>  +static inline void pgalloc_tag_split(struct folio *folio, int old_order, int new_order)
>  +{
>  +}
>  +
>  +static inline void pgalloc_tag_copy(struct folio *new, struct folio *old)
>  +{
>  +}
>  +#endif /* CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING */
>  +
> + #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + int do_mseal(unsigned long start, size_t len_in, unsigned long flags);
> + #else
> + static inline int do_mseal(unsigned long start, size_t len_in, unsigned long flags)
> + {
> + 	/* noop on 32 bit */
> + 	return 0;
> + }
> + #endif
> + 
>   #endif /* _LINUX_MM_H */

This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the execve tree with the mm tree

Posted by Yu Zhao 2 months, 3 weeks ago

On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 1:18 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the execve tree got a conflict in:
>
>   include/linux/mm.h
>
> between commits:
>
>   99ab6f0a6854 ("mm/codetag: fix pgalloc_tag_split()")
>   4d42ecdbd2fb ("mm/codetag: add pgalloc_tag_copy()")
>
> from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
>
>   44f65d900698 ("binfmt_elf: mseal address zero")
>
> from the execve 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.

Thanks for the heads-up.

The conflict was trivial and your resolution looks good to me.