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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.157558f062bfc@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 11:55:37 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Xin Zhao <jackzxcui1989@....com>, 
 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

Xin Zhao wrote:
> 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?

Sorry, this response was intended to v4. Yes, let's keep that change.
If hrtimer_add_expires cannot be used, then that patch is good as is.