linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] PTP support for the SJA1105 DSA driver

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]

Message-ID: <20190530143037.iky5kk3h4ssmec3f@localhost>
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 07:30:37 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] PTP support for the SJA1105 DSA driver

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:01:23PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> In fact that's why it doesn't work: because linuxptp adds ptp_dst_mac
> (01-1B-19-00-00-00) and (01-80-C2-00-00-0E) to the MAC's multicast
> filter, but the switch in its great wisdom mangles bytes
> 01-1B-19-xx-xx-00 of the DMAC to place the switch id and source port
> there (a rudimentary tagging mechanism). So the frames are no longer
> accepted by this multicast MAC filter on the DSA master port unless
> it's put in ALLMULTI or PROMISC.

IOW, it is not linuxptp's choice to use these modes, but rather this
is caused by a limitation of your device.
 
> If the meta frames weren't associated with the correct link-local
> frame, then the whole expect_meta -> SJA1105_STATE_META_ARRIVED
> mechanism would go haywire, but it doesn't.

Not necessarily.  If two frames that arrive at nearly the same time
get their timestamps mixed up, that would be enough to break the time
values but without breaking your state machine.

> I was actually thinking it has something to do with the fact that I
> shouldn't apply frequency corrections on timestamps of PTP delay
> messages. Does that make any sense?

What do you mean by that?  Is the driver altering PTP message fields?

Thanks,
Richard