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: <20180201041601.qovxelzmsox7opsf@localhost>
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 05:16:02 +0100
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
Cc:     Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>, 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.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:49:36PM -0800, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
> 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?

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,
Richard