netdev - RE: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of the timecompare method

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB580DC1C2@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:51:28 +0000
From:	"Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of
 the timecompare method

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@...il.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:52 PM
> To: chetan loke
> Cc: Keller, Jacob E; netdev@...r.kernel.org; e1000-
> devel@...ts.sourceforge.net; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Ronciak, John;
> john.stultz@...aro.org; tglx@...utronix.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of the
> timecompare method
> 
> > How about rate limiting at the PHC class driver level? And then it
> > will work across the board for all the adapters at the device level.
> 
> No, don't go there. Enough bikeshedding already. If you have a serious
> performance issue, please post a test case, and we will look for a solution.
> 

This is about a case where the user does something stupid. (runs the ioctls too
fast). It appears that your answer is something like "The user did something
stupid, we shouldn't care". My answer is, "we should do what we can to prevent
this." I don't think modifying the ptp framework is necessary or even a good
idea. (Because it is a particular issue with intel parts design, not with general
PTP design.) I do think if possible we should modify igb/ixgbe patches properly
to prevent the breaking. I am currently working on a test case where the user
*does* hammer the ioctls and seeing whether that actually crashes the driver.

> Thanks,
> Richard
> 

--
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