netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/4] sfc: support unicast PTP

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:   Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:41:51 +0100
From:   Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>
To:     Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc:     ecree.xilinx@...il.com, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Yalin Li <yalli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/4] sfc: support unicast PTP

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:22 PM Vadim Fedorenko
<vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev> wrote:
> Not sure why do you want general packets to go to the queue for
> timestamping? There is no need for timestamp them in the protocol.
> The same question is for multicast version.

The reason is explained in a comment in efx_ptp_insert_multicast filters:
   Must filter on both event and general ports to ensure
   that there is no packet re-ordering

So the reason is not that we want the timestamp, but we want those
packets to go to the same RX queue. As a side effect, they will be
timestamped, yes, but as far as I know, there is no way to avoid that.

-- 
Íñigo Huguet