netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 1/5] net: Introduce peer to peer one step PTP time stamping.

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: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5882D02569@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 23:51:25 +0000
From:   "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 1/5] net: Introduce peer to peer one
 step PTP time stamping.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@...il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:26 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org; Andrew Lunn
> <andrew@...n.ch>; David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Florian Fainelli
> <f.fainelli@...il.com>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>; Miroslav
> Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>; Willem de
> Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 1/5] net: Introduce peer to peer one step
> PTP time stamping.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:05:36PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > I am guessing that we expect all devices which support onestep P2P messages,
> will always support onestep SYNC as well?
> 
> Yes.  Anything else doesn't make sense, don't you think?
> 
> Also, reading 1588, it isn't clear whether supporting only 1-step Sync
> without 1-step P2P is even intended.  There is only a "one-step
> clock", and it is described as doing both.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard

This was my understanding as well, but given the limited hardware which can do sync but not pdelay messages, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Thanks,
Jake