netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: Fix updating SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID when SKBTX_HW

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: <CAF=yD-+EdbxnSa1SUqPamdxeDN_oPd4-kXAEF6yV1o_Zwj+LUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:32:08 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Mallon <stephen.mallon@...ney.edu.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: Fix updating SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID when
 SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP is enabled

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:57:57PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > It is debatable whether this is a fix or a new feature. It extends
> > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID to hardware timestamps. I don't think this
> > would be a stable candidate.
>
> Was the original series advertised as SW timestamping only?

I did not intend to cover hardware timestamps at the time.

> If so, I missed that at the time.  After seeing it not work, I meant
> to fix it, but never got around to it.  So to me this is a known
> issue.

Understood. I certainly understand that view. I never use hw
timestamps, so it is a bit of a blind spot for me. If this is a safe
and predictable change, I don't care strongly about net vs net-next. I
don't think it meets the bar for stable, but that is not my call.

> > More importantly, note that __ip6_append_data has similar logic. For
> > consistency the two should be updated at the same time.
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Richard