linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH iwl-next,v4 1/1] igc: Add Tx hardware timestamp request for AF

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, 26 Mar 2024 11:30:27 -0700
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To: "Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@...el.com>, "Brandeburg, Jesse"
 <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L"
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 Alexei
 Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Jesper
 Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, "Bezdeka,
 Florian" <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>, Kurt Kanzenbach
 <kurt@...utronix.de>, "Fijalkowski, Maciej" <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
Cc: "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, "xdp-hints@...-project.net"
 <xdp-hints@...-project.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH iwl-next,v4 1/1] igc: Add Tx hardware timestamp request
 for AF_XDP zero-copy packet

"Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@...el.com> writes:

>>
>>More a question: you are potentially triggering an interrupt from
>>igc_ptp_clear_tx_tstamp() (igc_xsk_wakeup()) which can be called from
>>igc_down(). So, how does it work when there's a pending timestamp and
>>you remove the igc module? (example of a situation that it might be
>>problematic).
>
> Hi Vinicius,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>
> There is test_bit(__IGC_DOWN, &adapter->state) checking in
> igc_sxk_wakeup(). Since igc_down() will set __IGC_DOWN before
> call into igc_ptp_suspend(), so I believe the checking in igc_sxk_wakeup()
> should be enough to prevent the situation that you mentioned.
>

Oh, I missed that one, sorry. Then:

Acked-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>

Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius