netdev - Re: TX time stamping

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: <20090320021050.GA7021@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:10:50 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	patrick.ohly@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: TX time stamping

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 02:05:09PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> Instead, we have a half-working turd in a tree, and I'm removing it.

Yes, we need to spend a bit more time pondering the semantics
of all this.

First of all, if a packet bifurcates and is transmitted through
two interfaces both capable of timestamping, which event do we
take as the timestamp of the original packet?

As to the problem of skb->sk, I don't think that's even needed
as we can simply use the skb shared area as the communication
medium.  However, for that to work we need to figure out what
we do when the packet becomes two independent entities, hence
we need to resolve the above question first.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html