netdev - Re: [PATCH] net-timestamp: Fix a documentation typo

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: <20141125083342.GA4411@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:33:42 +0100
From:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-timestamp: Fix a documentation typo

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:38:21PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> The datagram feature existed before I added the counter and stream
> support, so returning the entire packet in that case is legacy
> behavior, I suppose. I did not intend to expose network headers for
> the new stream socket interface, though.

I suppose that idea (not mine) behind returning the entire frame was
to allow the user to send multiple frames, and then figure out which
time stamp goes with which sent frame. The whole thing is weak for two
reasons, firstly you aren't able to send two identical frames, and
secondly there are quite a few time stamping cards out there which
only handle one transmit time stamp at a time. Thus the ptp4l
application always waits for the hardware time stamp before sending
another frame and never looks at the returned frame data.

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