netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] Add support for DMA timestamp for non-PTP packets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220930074016.295cbfab@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:40:16 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     "Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini" <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>
Cc:     "intel-wired-lan@...osl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...osl.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Gomes, Vinicius" <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        "Gunasekaran, Aravindhan" <aravindhan.gunasekaran@...el.com>,
        "Ahmad Tarmizi, Noor Azura" <noor.azura.ahmad.tarmizi@...el.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] Add support for DMA timestamp for non-PTP
 packets

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 08:52:38 +0000 Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini wrote:
> > > Yes. HW timestamps always can be assume equivalent to PTP quality.
> > > Could you provide additional information regarding SFD crosses the RS  
> > > layer?
> > 
> > I mean true PTP timestamps, rather than captured somewhere in the NIC
> > pipeline or at the DMA engine.  
> 
> When SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE is been used, we guaranteed a PTP quality
> Timestamps (timestamp capture when packet leave the wire upon sensing the SFD).
> As of SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE_DMA_FETCH, it is not a PTP quality because
> the HW timestamp reported in this case, is a time when the data is
> DMA'ed into the NIC packet buffer.

I understand that _your_ device does it right.
But there are vendors out there who treat SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE
as your new SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE_DMA_FETCH.

> > > Yes, you're right. Are you suggesting that we add a new tx_type to
> > > specify Only MAC/PHY timestamp ? Ex. HWTSTAMP_TX_PHY/MAC_ON.  
> > 
> > Perhaps we can call them HWTSTAMP_TX_PTP_* ? Was the general time
> > stamping requirement specified in IEEE 1588 or 802.1 (AS?)?
> > 
> > Both MAC and PHY can provide the time stamps IIUC, so picking one of those
> > will not be entirely fortunate. In fact perhaps embedded folks will use this
> > opportunity to disambiguate the two..  
> 
> With the help of SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE, we will get the 
> PHY level timestamp(PTP quality) while using SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE_DMA_FETCH,
> we will get the timestamp at a point in the NIC pipeline.
> 
> Linuxptp application uses SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE for their socket option.
> And this can guarantee a PTP quality timestamp. 
> 
> Can we just use a SOF_TIMESTAMPING to identify which timestamp that we want rather 
> than creating a new tx_type?

Hm, perhaps, yes, we can stick to that.