netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] net-timestamp: extend SCM

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: <CA+FuTScobCk5EFgsht=S0mfF4fVh1fKqAAV8+mZLk9h1O_uwnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:45:30 -0400
From:	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] net-timestamp: extend SCM_TIMESTAMPING
 ancillary data struct

>> 2) Add support to discern timestamps. When multiple timestamped
>> packets are in flight concurrently, correlating a timestamp with
>> the right send() call is non-trivial. Define previously unused field
>> ee_data to communicate a send() specific key, skb->mark. It is
>> up to the application to optionally set this field to a unique
>> value for each send call.
>
> I'm not so sure about this skb->mark usage, it has other uses for things
> such as classification, it influences route lookups, netfilter behavior,
> etc.
>
> I do not think you therefore want to add another usage, timestamp packet
> keying, which may conflict.

Ok. I will remove that part.

There are a few alternatives, but none as simple, so this is better
left to a separate patch. With skb_shinfo(skb)->syststamp deprecated
for all but the octeon legacy use case, it is possible to repurpose
those bytes for new uses in a union, including for a new u16 ts_key.
The sk would still have to grow by a new field, though, e.g.,
ts_counter. I have to think about this a bit more first.

> This isn't indented correctly, the tx_flags test is part of the sock_flag()
> test expression right before it so either:

Thanks.
--
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