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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8e77a23e-d8f8-78ee-f681-0aa689ba3d22@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:49:36 -0800
From:   Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org,
        Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>, jiri@...nulli.us,
        ivan.briano@...el.com, henrik@...tad.us, jhs@...atatu.com,
        levi.pearson@...man.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        anna-maria@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket
 option for a future transmit time.

Hi,


On 01/18/2018 09:13 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> In the discussion about the v1 patchset, there was a question if the
>> cmsg should include a clockid_t. Without that, how can an application
>> prevent the packet from being sent using an incorrect clock, e.g.
>> the system clock when it expects it to be a PHC, or a different PHC
>> when the socket is not bound to a specific interface?
> 
> Right, the clockid_t should be passed in through the CMSG along with
> the time.

While implementing this today it crossed my mind that why don't we have the
clockid_t set per socket (e.g. as an argument to SO_TXTIME) instead of per packet?

The only use-case that we could think of that would be 'blocked' was using
sendmmsg() to send a packet to different interfaces with a single syscall, but
I'm not sure how common that is.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Jesus


>  
> Thanks,
> Richard
>