[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140625045607.GC3845@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:56:08 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] net-timestamp: explicit SO_TIMESTAMPING
ancillary data struct
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:43:46AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> The code is backward compatible with legacy applications that treat
> the ancillary data as an anonymous array 'struct timespec data[3]'.
> It will break applications that test the size of the cmsg data.
I think this introduces an unacceptable ABI change.
In linuxptp we have
if (SOL_SOCKET == level && SO_TIMESTAMPING == type) {
if (cm->cmsg_len < sizeof(*ts) * 3) {
pr_warning("short SO_TIMESTAMPING message");
return -1;
}
ts = (struct timespec *) CMSG_DATA(cm);
}
but other applications might barf if the length isn't exactly right.
> +/**
> + * struct sock_errqueue_timestamping - timestamps exposed through cmsg
> + *
> + * The timestamping interfaces SO_TIMESTAMPING, MSG_TSTAMP_*
> + * communicate network timestamps to userspace by passing this struct
> + * through a cmsg in recvmsg().
> + *
> + * @ts_sw: the sw timestamp: the contents depends on ts_type.
This would overload the field. I don't like that.
> + * @ts_hw_sys: a hardware generated timestamp converted to system time.
> + * @ts_hw_raw: a hardware generated timestamp converted in its raw format.
> + * @ts_type: the type of timestamp ts_sw. One of SCM_TSTAMP_*
> + * @ts_key: socket flow index that the timestamps correspond to
> + * (stream transport protocols only, e.g., TCP seqno)
> + *
> + * The first three fields are dictated by historical use. The hardware
> + * timestamps are empty unless hardware timestamping is enabled, but
> + * they have to be present in each message.
> + */
> +struct sock_errqueue_timestamping {
> + struct timespec ts_sw;
> + struct timespec ts_hw_sys;
> + struct timespec ts_hw_raw;
> + __u32 ts_key;
> + __u16 ts_type;
> + __u16 ts_padding;
> +};
> +
> +enum {
> + SCM_TSTAMP_SND = 1,
> + SCM_TSTAMP_ACK = 2,
> + SCM_TSTAMP_ENQ = 3
> +};
So why not simply introduce a new kind of CMSG for these new time
stamps? It appears that the use case for these is totally different
than for SO_TIMESTAMPING. I can't imagine why you would want to mix
them together.
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists