netdev - Re: [RFC v3 net-next 08/18] net: SO_TXTIME: Add clockid and drop_if

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, 21 Mar 2018 13:58:51 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        jiri@...nulli.us, vinicius.gomes@...el.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
        henrik@...tad.us, john.stultz@...aro.org, levi.pearson@...man.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com, mlichvar@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 net-next 08/18] net: SO_TXTIME: Add clockid and drop_if_late
 params

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Richard Cochran wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:53:29PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > This is adding 32+1 bits to sk_buff, and possibly holes in this very
> > very hot (and already too fat) structure.
> > 
> > Do we really need 32 bits for a clockid_t ?
> 
> Probably we can live with fewer bits.
> 
> For clock IDs with a positive sign, the max possible clock value is 16.
> 
> For clock IDs with a negative sign, IIRC, three bits are for the type
> code (we have also posix timers packed like this) and the are for the
> file descriptor.  So maybe we could use 16 bits, allowing 12 bits or
> so for encoding the FD.
> 
> The downside would be that this forces the application to make sure
> and open the dynamic posix clock early enough before the FD count gets
> too high.

Errm. No. There is no way to support fd based clocks or one of the CPU
time/process time based clocks for this.

CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_MONOTONIC are probably the only interesting
ones. BOOTTIME is hopefully soon irrelevant as we make MONOTONIC and
BOOTTIME the same unless this causes unexpectedly a major issues. I don't
think that CLOCK_TAI makes sense in that context, but I might be wrong.

The rest of the CLOCK_* space cannot be used at all.

So you need at max 2 bits for this, but I think 1 is good enough.

Thanks,

	tglx