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]

Date:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:39:06 -0800
From:   Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
To:     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, richardcochran@...il.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 12:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 03:06:12PM -0800, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
>> From: Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>
>>
>> This patch introduces SO_TXTIME.  User space enables this option in
>> order to pass a desired future transmit time in a CMSG when calling
>> sendmsg(2).
>>
>> A new field is added to struct sockcm_cookie, and the tstamp from
>> skbuffs will be used later on.
> 
> 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?
> 
> At least in some applications it would be preferred to not sent a
> packet at all instead of sending it at a wrong time.
> 
> Please keep in mind that the PHCs and the system clock don't have to
> be synchronized to each other. If I understand the rest of the series
> correctly, there is an assumption that the PHCs are keeping time in
> TAI and CLOCK_TAI can be used as a fallback.


Just to double-check, imagine that I've configured the qdisc for
SW best-effort and with clockid CLOCK_REALTIME. When it receives a
packet with the clockid of a /dev/ptpX, the qdisc should just drop that
packet, right?

Or would this block any use-cases that I couldn't think of ?

Thanks,
Jesus