netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/13] extended semantic of sk_buff::tstamp: lowest bit marks hardware time stamps

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

Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:09:04 +0100
From:	Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Ingo Oeser <netdev@...eo.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/13] extended semantic of sk_buff::tstamp: lowest
	bit	marks hardware time stamps

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 07:41 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Please use ktime_t instead of "union ktime"

Are you sure? 

include/linux/ktime.h says
        typedef union ktime ktime_t;            /* Kill this */
and the CodingStyle also seems to be against it.

I thought it would be good to avoid using the typedef in new code, but
if consistency with the existing code is preferred, then I'll change it.

> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * make sure that lowest bit is never set: it marks hardware
> > +	 * time stamps
> > +	 */
> > +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 64 && !defined(CONFIG_KTIME_SCALAR)
> > +	skb->tstamp.tv.sec = skb->tstamp.tv.sec / 2 * 2;
> 
> .tv.sec ? are you sure you dont want .tv.nsec ?

Eek! Right. I'm pretty sure I compiled this in 32 bit mode, but I
haven't actually tried the result.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

--
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