netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket option for a future transmit time.

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: <20180125091225.GG1169@localhost>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:12:25 +0100
From:   Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>,
        Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        ivan.briano@...el.com,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, henrik@...tad.us,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, levi.pearson@...man.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
        Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket
 option for a future transmit time.

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:09:15PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 04:15:46PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > +               if (cmsg->cmsg_len != CMSG_LEN(sizeof(ktime_t)))
> > > +                       return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > I don't see any existing reference to ktime_t in include/uapi. Just use a s64?
> 
> Agreed.  I didn't see the point of switching to ktime, either.

Do I understand it correctly that no other interface is using
nanoseconds since 1970? We probably don't have to worry about year
2262 yet, but wouldn't it be better to make it consistent with the
timestamping API using timespec? Or is it just better to avoid the
64/32-bit mess of time_t?

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar