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, 19 Jul 2022 07:40:16 +0000
From:   Ferenc Fejes <>
To:     "" <>,
        "" <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: igc: missing HW timestamps at TX

Hi Vinicius!

On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 11:46 -0300, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hi Ferenc,
> Ferenc Fejes <> writes:
> > (Ctrl+Enter'd by mistake)
> > 
> > My question here: is there anything I can quickly try to avoid that
> > behavior? Even when I send only a few (like 10) packets but on fast
> > rate (5us between packets) I get missing TX HW timestamps. The
> > receive
> > side looks much more roboust, I cannot noticed missing HW
> > timestamps
> > there.
> There's a limitation in the i225/i226 in the number of "in flight" TX
> timestamps they are able to handle. The hardware has 4 sets of
> registers
> to handle timestamps.
> There's an aditional issue that the driver as it is right now, only
> uses
> one set of those registers.
> I have one only briefly tested series that enables the driver to use
> the
> full set of TX timestamp registers. Another reason that it was not
> proposed yet is that I still have to benchmark it and see what is the
> performance impact.

Thank you for the quick reply! I'm glad you already have this series
right off the bat. I'll be back when we done with a quick testing,
hopefully sooner than later.
> If you are feeling adventurous and feel like helping test it, here is
> the link:
> Cheers,


Powered by blists - more mailing lists