netdev - Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH] fixing hw timestamping in igb

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: <780F45C5-C013-4B61-816F-B3DCC6D19545@halon.se>
Date:	Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:51:07 +0100
From:	Anders Berggren <anders@...on.se>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH] fixing hw timestamping in igb

On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Joe Perches wrote:

> Perhaps you mean 8 nanosecond resolution?
> Is documentation available for this claim?

To clarify; we haven't proven this either mathematically not in a laboratory (looking at actual data transmissions). Also, it's the jitter accuracy we're concerned with. We have simply assumed that the jitter of two independent servers (exchanging timestamps) over a very short cable is an approximation of jitter accuracy.

As you say; if the resolution is 8 ns, the accuracy is of course worse than 8 ns. So far, we have however assumed the accuracy to be within the same order of magnitude.--
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