netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sock: don't enable netstamp for af

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: <1445951975.7476.16.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:19:35 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sock: don't enable netstamp for af_unix sockets

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:15 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

> Also counter question: why is the netstamp code protected by a
> static_key otherwise if not for trying to suppress the code path as
> often as possible if not used? ;)

Any idea of why timestamping is asked on AF_UNIX in the first place ?

For messages sent/received on af_unix sockets, in which place timestamp
is taken ?

Is it at the time skb is cooked and stored in receive queue, or the time
it was dequeued ?

In any case, is your patch changing af_unix behavior ? It is not clear
from your changelog...

--
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