netdev - net_disable_timestamp() needed when disable SO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:55:33 -0000
From:	"Andrew Brampton" <andrew@...mp.freeserve.co.uk>
To:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: net_disable_timestamp() needed when disable SO_TIMESTAMP?

Hi,
I'm new to the linux kernel, but I was trying to understand how the kernel 
records timestamps for each packets and this lead me to net/core/sock.c.

Now lines 610-624 (http://lxr.linux.no/linux/net/core/sock.c#L610 ) enable 
and disable SO_TIMESTAMP, and when enabling sock_enable_timestamp(sk) is 
called to enable time stamping on the socket. However 
sock_disable_timestamp() isn't called if SO_TIMESTAMP is being disabled. I 
was wondering if that was an over sight or done on purpose?

I see that sock_disable_timestamp() is eventually called when the socket is 
freed. I thought it might not be disabled in sock.c if for example it was 
enabled elsewhere, and it was unclear if it should be disabled or not?

Thanks for any clarity on this.
Andrew

P.S If it is a bug, I'm going to prepare my first kernel patch :) 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html