netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/5] net-timestamp: additional sw tstamps and

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: <20140731.223502.1817836164659773906.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2014 22:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	willemb@...gle.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	richardcochran@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/5] net-timestamp: additional sw tstamps
 and

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:36:16 -0400

> An earlier internal version of the patch did not lock the buffers,
> but recorded the seqno in skb_shared_info and referenced that in
> these cases. The obvious drawback is having to store an u32 in
> skb_shinfo. We did just regain 64b with the removal of syststamp,
> though. Would this be a reasonable approach?

At the time we were discussing the removal syststamp, the intention
was to use that space for a new value that can be use to match up
timestamps properly with the packets they are for.

Originally you wanted to use skb->mark for this and then we discussed
all of the drawbacks and shortcoming of that.

What happened to those plans?

Also, there might be 4 bytes available in tcp_skb_cb.
--
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