netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] dt-bindings: net: micrel: Configure latency values and timestamping check for LAN8814 phy

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: <20220309195252.GB9663@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:52:52 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, hkallweit1@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Madhuri.Sripada@...rochip.com, Manohar.Puri@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] dt-bindings: net: micrel: Configure latency
 values and timestamping check for LAN8814 phy

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 02:55:49PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

> I think we understand this, and compensating for the delay in the PHY
> is quite reasonable, which surely will be a fixed amount irrespective
> of the board.

The PHY delays are not fixed.  They can be variable, even packet to packet.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260434179_Measurement_of_egress_and_ingress_delays_of_PTP_clocks

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265731050_Experimental_verification_of_the_egress_and_ingress_latency_correction_in_PTP_clocks

Some PHYs are well behaved.  Some are not.

In any case, the linuxptp user space stack supports the standardized
method of correcting a system's delay asymmetry.  IMO it makes no
sense to even try to let kernel device drivers correct these delays.
Driver authors will get it wrong, and indeed they have already tried
and failed.  And when the magic numbers change from one kernel release
to another, it only makes the end user's job harder, because they will
have to update their scripts to correct the bogus numbers.

Thanks,
Richard