netdev - Re: Storing hardware timestamps - how about using the new skb's control block?

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 09:27:18 +0100
From:	Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com>
To:	Mark Smith 
	<nanog@...5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
Subject: Re: Storing hardware timestamps - how about using the new skb's
	control block?

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 20:53 +0000, Mark Smith wrote:
> Just a quick suggestion for storing hardware timestamps, how about
> storing them in the new skb's control block?
> 
> From what I understand, any private users of the control block are
> supposed to ignore the existing value, and if a protocol/tap is going
> to be looking at the new skb, it should have done a skb_share_check()
> first to grab it's own private copy if necessary, protecting the
> control block stored timestamp value from any of the other skb
> users who might change the control block value for their own purposes.

My understanding of sk_buff->cb might be wrong, but isn't each layer
allowed to overwrite it as the packet traverses the different queues?
skb_share_check() is not mandatory: the owner of a packet has to call it
if he wants to preserve the control block, not the recipient of a
packet.

If that understanding is correct, then I don't see how the control block
can be used to communicate information across layers. Or do I miss
something fundamental?

-- 
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