netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 5/5] net-timestamp: tx timestamping default mode flag

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]

Date:	Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:49:00 -0500
From:	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 5/5] net-timestamp: tx timestamping default
 mode flag

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:31:59PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
>>
>> The number of timestamping points along the transmit path has grown,
>> as have the options. Preferred behavior is to request timestamps with
>> ID, without data (which enables batching) and for all supported
>> timestamp points. Define a short option that enables all these
>> defaults.
>
> This "preferred behavior" is subjective, and it depends on the
> application.  I am sure it reflects your own interest, but for people
> doing PTP over UDP or raw, it is a bit misleading.
>
> I would drop this default and just let applications define their own.

Okay. I indeed hadn't considered that use-case.

Just so I understand: ptp has no use for the sw tstamps
that would be generated with this flag, but is otherwise
okay with enabling counters to order tx timestamps
(OPT_ID) and disabling payload (OPT_TSONLY)?

In the documentation, I would like to strongly suggest all
processes to enable these, even in absence of this default.
because that is more robust wrt the sysctl (if merged).

>
> Thanks,

Thanks for taking a look at the patches.

> 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