netdev - Re: [RFC v2 net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETSYNCESTATE message to get SyncE status

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, 31 Aug 2021 07:18:01 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     "Machnikowski, Maciej" <maciej.machnikowski@...el.com>
Cc:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "abyagowi@...com" <abyagowi@...com>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETSYNCESTATE
 message to get SyncE status

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:07:32 +0000 Machnikowski, Maciej wrote:
> > > I agree that this also is useful for Time card, yet it's also useful here.
> > > PTP subsystem should implement a similar logic to this one for
> > > DPLL-driven timers which can lock its frequency to external sources.  
> > 
> > Why would we have two APIs for doing the same thing? IIUC Richard does
> > not want this in the PTP ioctls which is fair, but we need to cater to devices
> > which do not have netdevs.  
> 
> From technical point of view - it can be explained by the fact that the DPLL
> driving the SyncE logic can be separate from the one driving PTP.  Also
> SyncE is frequency-only oriented and doesn't care about phase and
> Time of Day that PTP also needs. The GNSS lock on the PTP side will be
> multi-layered, as the full lock would mean that our PTP clock is not only
> syntonized, but also has its time and phase set correctly.

Just because GNSS lock addresses more parameters (potentially) doesn't
mean the syntonization part shouldn't be addressed by the same API.

> A PTP can reuse the "physical" part of this interface later on, but it also needs
> to solve more SW-specific challenges, like reporting the PTP lock on a SW level.
> 
> I agree that having such API for PTP subsystem will be very useful,
> but let's address SyncE in netdev first and build the PTP netlink on top of what
> we learn here. We can always move the structures defined here to the layer
> above without affecting any APIs.

It's a reasonable SW design strategy to start simple. Unfortunately, 
it doesn't apply to stable uAPI design. You're adding a RTNL op, which
will have to be supported for ever. If we add anything "later" it will
be a strict addition, and will have to be backward compatible. Which
I'm not sure how to do when the object we'd operate on would be
completely different (clock vs netdev).

As I said I can write the boilerplate code for you if you prefer, the
code implementing the command and the driver interface will be almost
identical.

Is there a reason why RTNL is better?