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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231124154343.sr3ajyueoshke6tn@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:43:43 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: 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 Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 09:32:05AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:00:56PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote:
> > So, do we have a consensus? Vlad, do you agree on putting all under ethtool?
> > 
> > ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO will be in charge of replacing the SIOCGHWSTAMP
> > implementation. Need to add ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_PHC_INDEX
> > ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_QUALIFIER to the request.
> > 
> > ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO will list all the hwtstamp provider (aka "{phc_index,
> > qualifier}") through the dumpit callback. I will add a filter to be able to
> > list only the hwtstamp provider of one netdev.
> > 
> > ETHTOOL_SET_TS_INFO will be in charge of replacing the SIOCSHWSTAMP
> > implementation.
> 
> If not we can do a vote/poll? Maybe others don't find the configuration
> of timestamping as confusing as me.

If you mean the ETHTOOL_MSG_TSINFO_GET netlink message (ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO
is an ioctl), you're saying that you want to move the entire contents of
SIOCGHWSTAMP there, by making the kernel call ndo_hwtstamp_get() in
addition to the existing __ethtool_get_ts_info()?

Yeah, I don't know, I don't have a real objection, I guess it's fine.

What will be a bit of an "?!" moment for users is when ethtool gains
support for the SIOCGHWSTAMP/SIOCSHWSTAMP netlink replacements, but not
for the original ioctls. So hwstamp_ctl will be able to change timestamping
configuration, but ethtool wouldn't - all on the same system. Unless
ethtool gains an ioctl fallback for a ioctl that was never down its alley.

But by all means, still hold a poll if you want to. I would vote for
ethtool netlink, not because it's great, just because I don't have a
better alternative to propose.