| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:31:26 +0100 From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com> To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com> Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: hardware time stamping with extra skb->hwtstamp On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 10:37 +0000, Patrick Ohly wrote: > Oliver suggested: > > What about just creating a new pointer in the struct skbuff that points > > to a struct hwstamp when it is available OR the pointer is NULL when no > > hwstamps are available. [...] > So it seems to me that we need the additional 32 bit offset (or pointer, > on 32 bit architectures) in skb which points towards the struct > hwtstamp. But that's actually less than the additional 64 bit which hold > the time stamp value, as in the current patch. It doesn't even need a 32 bit offset. If it is always at the same location in the buffer (e.g., directly after skb_shared_info), then a single bit is sufficient. The same mechanism could be used to also store other optional structs/fields. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists