netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 05/12] ionic: add hw timestamp support files

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]

Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:18:00 -0700
From:   Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        drivers@...sando.io, Allen Hubbe <allenbh@...sando.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 05/12] ionic: add hw timestamp support files

On 4/5/21 11:17 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:16:39AM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> On 4/4/21 4:05 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> This check is unneeded, because the ioctl layer never passes NULL here.
>> Yes, the ioctl layer never calls this with NULL, but we call it from within
>> the driver when we spin operations back up after a FW reset.
> So why not avoid the special case and pass a proper request?

We do this because our firmware reset path is a special case that we 
have to handle, and we do so by replaying the previous configuration 
request.  Passing the NULL request gives the code the ability to watch 
for this case while keeping the special case handling simple: the code 
that drives the replay logic doesn't need to know the hwstamp details, 
it just needs to signal the replay and let the hwstamp code keep track 
of its own data and request history.

I can update the comment to make that replay case more obvious.

sln