linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire operation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250817144709.3599024-1-jackzxcui1989@163.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 22:47:09 +0800
From: Xin Zhao <jackzxcui1989@....com>
To: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com,
	ferenc@...es.dev
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
	kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com,
	horms@...nel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire operation

On Sun, 2025-08-17 at 21:28 +0800, Willem wrote:

> Here we cannot use hrtimer_add_expires for the same reason you gave in
> the second version of the patch:
> 
> > Additionally, I think we cannot avoid using ktime_get, as the retire
> > timeout for each block is not fixed. When there are a lot of network packets,
> > a block can retire quickly, and if we do not re-fetch the time, the timeout
> > duration may be set incorrectly.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> Otherwise patch LGTM.

I'll think about whether there's a better way to implement the logic.

Additionally, regarding the previous email where you mentioned replacing retire_blk_tov
with the interval_ktime field, do we still need to make that change?
I noticed you didn't respond to my latest patch that replaces retire_blk_tov with
interval_ktime, and I'm wondering if we should make that change.
So we remain the retire_blk_tov field?

Thanks
Xin Zhao