netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 15/16] net: ethtool: ts: Let the active time stamping layer be selectable

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: <20231122085459.1601141e@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 08:54:59 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, Florian
 Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>, Broadcom internal kernel review
 list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King
 <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Richard
 Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Radu Pirea
 <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>, Andy
 Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, Nicolas Ferre
 <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet
 <corbet@....net>, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
 UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Thomas
 Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Maxime Chevallier
 <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 15/16] net: ethtool: ts: Let the active time
 stamping layer be selectable

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:36:18 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> @Jakub, for your long-term "MAC timestamps for PTP, DMA for everything else".
> How do you see this? I guess we need some sort of priority function in
> the UAPI between hwtstamp providers.
> 
> And even with that, I think the enums that we currently have for filters
> are not specific enough. The most we could expose is:
> 
>                       MAC provider                      DMA provider
> 
> hwtstamp_rx_filters   HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT      HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL
> tx_type               HWTSTAMP_TX_ON                    HWTSTAMP_TX_ON
> 
> but it isn't clear: for PTP, does the DMA provider give you an RX
> timestamp too?

If we phrase it as "precise / approximate" rather than "MAC / DMA" - it
seems fairly intuitive to give the best timestamp available for a given
packet, no?

> What about a TX timestamp?

I was thinking - socket flag to make packets for a given socket request
precise timestamps.