netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net_tstamp: add new flag HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_UNSTABLE

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]

Message-ID: <YbGGosXXCvBAJEx4@Laptop-X1>
Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:31:30 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net_tstamp: add new flag
 HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_UNSTABLE_PHC

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 07:20:22AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > +/* possible values for hwtstamp_config->flags */
> > +enum hwtstamp_flags {
> > +	/*
> > +	 * With this flag the user should aware that the PHC index
> > +	 * get/set by syscall is not stable. e.g. the phc index of
> > +	 * bond active interface may changed after failover.
> > +	 */
> > +	HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_UNSTABLE_PHC = (1<<0),
> 
> Can we please find a different name?  I see this, and I think,
> "unstable ptp hw clock".  Nobody would want to use such a clock.
> 
> How about HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX ?

Thanks, this one looks better.

> 
> > +	/* add new constants above here */
> > +	__HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_CNT
> > +};
> 
> I guess that the original intent of hwtstamp_config.flags was for user
> space to SET flags that it wanted. 
> Now this has become a place for drivers to return values back.

I think it's a flag that when uses want phc index of bond.
There is no affect for other drivers. It only affect bond interfaces.
When this flag set, it means users want to get the info from bond.

Do I missed something?

> Please make the input/output distinction clear in the comments.

Yes, with the flag name changed to HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX.
The comments also need update.

Thanks
Hangbin