netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket option for a future transmit time.

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:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:52:21 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>,
        Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        ivan.briano@...el.com,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, henrik@...tad.us,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, levi.pearson@...man.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
        Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket
 option for a future transmit time.

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:12:25AM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> Do I understand it correctly that no other interface is using
> nanoseconds since 1970? We probably don't have to worry about year
> 2262 yet, but wouldn't it be better to make it consistent with the
> timestamping API using timespec? Or is it just better to avoid the
> 64/32-bit mess of time_t?

I prefer a single 64 bit nanoseconds field:

- Applications won't have to convert to timespec.

- Avoids the time_t issue.

Thanks,
Richard