Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:16:52 +1100

Hi all,

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

  kernel/bpf/verifier.c

between commits:

  b5871dca250c ("bpf: Simplify alu_limit masking for pointer arithmetic")
  1b1597e64e1a ("bpf: Add sanity check for upper ptr_limit")

from the net tree and commit:

  69c087ba6225 ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (see below - but it may need more work on the new
"return" starement from the latter commit) 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 kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 44e4ec1640f1,f9096b049cd6..000000000000
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@@ -5876,10 -6056,22 +6060,23 @@@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const str
  		if (mask_to_left)
  			*ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
  		else
 -			*ptr_limit = -off;
 -		return 0;
 +			*ptr_limit = -off - 1;
 +		return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0;
+ 	case PTR_TO_MAP_KEY:
+ 		/* Currently, this code is not exercised as the only use
+ 		 * is bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper which requires
+ 		 * bpf_capble. The code has been tested manually for
+ 		 * future use.
+ 		 */
+ 		if (mask_to_left) {
+ 			*ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
+ 		} else {
+ 			off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off;
+ 			*ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->key_size - off;
+ 		}
+ 		return 0;
  	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
 +		max = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size;
  		if (mask_to_left) {
  			*ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
  		} else {