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  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]
Date:   Sat, 5 Dec 2020 03:49:27 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,,
        Eran Ben Elisha <>,
        Tariq Toukan <>,
        Richard Cochran <>,
        Vladimir Oltean <>,
        Willem de Bruijn <>
Subject: Re: [net-next V2 08/15] net/mlx5e: Add TX PTP port object support

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:26:13PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 11:33:26 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:29 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 20:21:01 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > > Add TX PTP port object support for better TX timestamping accuracy.
> > > > Currently, driver supports CQE based TX port timestamp. Device
> > > > also offers TX port timestamp, which has less jitter and better
> > > > reflects the actual time of a packet's transmit.
> > >
> > > How much better is it?
> > >
> > > Is the new implementation is standard compliant or just a "better
> > > guess"?
> >
> > It is not a guess for sure, the closer to the output port you take the
> > stamp the more accurate you get, this is why we need the HW timestamp
> > in first place, i don't have the exact number though, but we target to
> > be compliant with G.8273.2 class C, (30 nsec), and this code allow
> > Linux systems to be deployed in the 5G telco edge. Where this standard
> > is needed.
> I see. IIRC there was also an IEEE standard which specified the exact
> time stamping point (i.e. SFD crosses layer X). If it's class C that
> answers the question, I think.

The ITU-T G.8273.2 specification just requires a Class C clock to have a
maximum absolute time error under steady state of 30 ns. And taking
timestamps closer to the wire eliminates some clock domain crossings
from what is measured in the path delay, this is probably the reason why
timestamping is more accurate, and it helps to achieve the required
jitter figure.

The IEEE standard that you're thinking of is clause "7.3.4 Generation of
event message timestamps" of IEEE 1588.

-----------------------------[cut here]----------------------------- Event message timestamp point

Unless otherwise specified in a transport-specific annex to this
standard, the message timestamp point for an event message shall be the
beginning of the first symbol after the Start of Frame (SOF) delimiter. Event timestamp generation

All PTP event messages are timestamped on egress and ingress. The
timestamp shall be the time at which the event message timestamp point
passes the reference plane marking the boundary between the PTP node and
the network.

NOTE 1— If an implementation generates event message timestamps using a
point other than the message timestamp point, then the generated
timestamps should be appropriately corrected by the time interval
between the actual time of detection and the time the message timestamp
point passed the reference plane. Failure to make these corrections
results in a time offset between the slave and master clocks.
-----------------------------[cut here]-----------------------------

So there you go, it just says "the reference plane marking the boundary
between the PTP node and the network". So it depends on how you draw the
borders. I cannot seem to find any more precise definition.

Regardless of the layer at which the timestamp is taken, it is the
jitter that matters more than the reduced path delay. The latter is just
a side effect.

"How much better" is an interesting question though.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists