netdev - Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

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:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:08:15 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     arnd@...db.de
Cc:     mlichvar@...hat.com, willemb@...gle.com, bjorn.topel@...il.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, francisyyan@...il.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org, rami.rosen@...el.com,
        andreyknvl@...gle.com, maloney@...gle.com,
        sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit
 timestamps

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:02:05 +0100

> Does this mean you think the general idea of an extended interface
> for 64-bit timestamps is useful for traditional packet sockets? I
> think that was still an open question, though we seem to be getting
> closer to consensus on the implementation and the interface that it
> should use if we want it.

If it can be done reasonably easy, which you patches seem to indicate
is the case, I have no objections to extending packet socket for
64-bit timestamps.

I hope that AF_CAPTURE will be designed in such a way that all apps
can migrate to it, and I will be making sure it is implemented
appropriately with that in mind.

But I don't think AF_CAPTURE should block your work here.