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]

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:59:55 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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, Nov 22, 2023 at 08:54:59AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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?

I wouldn't be so sure. The alternative interpretation "for PTP, give me
timestamps from both sources" also sounds reasonable for the distant
future where that will be possible (with proper cmsg identification).
But I don't see how to distinguish the two - the filters, expressed in
these terms, would be the same.

> > What about a TX timestamp?
> 
> I was thinking - socket flag to make packets for a given socket request
> precise timestamps.

So the ptp4l source code would have to be modified to still work with
the same precision as before? I'm not seeing this through.