linux-kernel - Re: [net-next, v5, 08/11] net: sock: extend SO

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:   Sun, 4 Jul 2021 06:33:31 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, mptcp@...ts.linux.dev,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Rui Sousa <rui.sousa@....com>,
        Sebastien Laveze <sebastien.laveze@....com>
Subject: Re: [net-next, v5, 08/11] net: sock: extend SO_TIMESTAMPING for PHC
 binding

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 04:11:59PM +0800, Yangbo Lu wrote:
> Since PTP virtual clock support is added, there can be
> several PTP virtual clocks based on one PTP physical
> clock for timestamping.
> 
> This patch is to extend SO_TIMESTAMPING API to support
> PHC (PTP Hardware Clock) binding by adding a new flag
> SOF_TIMESTAMPING_BIND_PHC. When PTP virtual clocks are
> in use, user space can configure to bind one for
> timestamping, but PTP physical clock is not supported
> and not needed to bind.

Would it not be better to simply bind automatically?

Like this pseudo code:

	if (hw_timestamping_requested() && interface_is_vclock()) {
		bind_vclock();
	}

It would be great to avoid forcing user space to use a new option.

Especially because NOT setting the option makes no sense.  Or maybe
there is a use case for omitting the option?


Thoughts?

Thanks,
Richard