netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] Add ndo_hwtstamp_get/set support to vlan code path

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, 5 Apr 2023 10:42:53 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     Maxim Georgiev <glipus@...il.com>, kory.maincent@...tlin.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com,
        vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, richardcochran@...il.com,
        gerhard@...leder-embedded.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] Add ndo_hwtstamp_get/set support to vlan
 code path

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:28:40 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> So what do you suggest doing with bonding, then? Not use the generic
> helper at all?

It'd seem most natural to me to split the generic "descend" helper into
two functions, one which retrieves the lower and one which does the
appropriate calling dance (ndo vs ioctl, and DSA, which I guess is now
gone?). The latter could be used for the first descend as well I'd
presume. And it can be exported for the use of more complex drivers
like bonding which want to walk the lowers themselves.

> - it requires cfg.flags & HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX to be set in
>   SET requests
> 
> - it sets cfg.flags | HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX in GET responses

IIRC that was to indicate to user space that the real PHC may change
for this netdev so it needs to pay attention to netlink notifications.
Shouldn't apply to *vlans?

> Notably, something I would have expected it does but it doesn't do is it
> doesn't apply the same hwtstamping config to the lower interface that
> isn't active, when the switchover happens. Presumably user space does that.

Yes, user space must be involved anyway, because the entire clock will
change. IMHO implementing the pass thru for timestamping requests on
bonding is checkbox engineering, kernel can't make it work
transparently. But nobody else spoke up when it was proposed so...

> So it's not that much different.