Message-ID: <73235f05-8474-4341-b70b-34bd0e6dfac5@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:23:25 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
 Jörn-Thorben Hinz <j-t.hinz@...mni.tu-berlin.de>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Allow setting SO_TIMESTAMPING* with
 bpf_setsockopt()

On 1/17/24 7:55 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> On 1/16/24 7:17 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> Jörn-Thorben Hinz wrote:
>>>> A BPF application, e.g., a TCP congestion control, might benefit from or
>>>> even require precise (=hardware) packet timestamps. These timestamps are
>>>> already available through __sk_buff.hwtstamp and
>>>> bpf_sock_ops.skb_hwtstamp, but could not be requested: BPF programs were
>>>> not allowed to set SO_TIMESTAMPING* on sockets.
>>
>> This patch only uses the SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE in the selftest. How about
>> others? e.g. the SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_* that will affect the sk->sk_error_queue
>> which seems not good. If rx tstamp is useful, tx tstamp should be useful also?
> 
> Good point. Or should not be allowed to be set from BPF.
> 
> That significantly changes process behavior, e.g., by returning POLLERR.
>   
>>>>
>>>> Enable BPF programs to actively request the generation of timestamps
>>>> from a stream socket. The also required ioctl(SIOCSHWTSTAMP) on the
>>>> network device must still be done separately, in user space.
>>
>> hmm... so both ioctl(SIOCSHWTSTAMP) of the netdevice and the
>> SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE of the sk must be done?
>>
>> I likely miss something. When skb is created  in the driver rx path, the sk is
>> not known yet though. How the SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE of the sk affects the
>> skb_shinfo(skb)->hwtstamps?
> 
> Indeed it does not seem to do anything in the datapath.
> 
> Requesting SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE will call net_enable_timestamp
> to start timestamping packets.
> 
> But SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE does not so thing.
> 
> Drivers do use it in ethtool get_ts_info to signal hardware
> capabilities. But those must be configured using the ioctl.
> 
> It is there more for consistency with the other timestamp recording
> options, I suppose.
> 

Thanks for the explanation on the SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_{HARDWARE,SOFTWARE}.

__sk_buff.hwtstamp should have the NIC rx timestamp then as long as the NIC is 
ioctl configured.

Jorn, do you need RX_SOFTWARE? From looking at net_timestamp_set(), any socket 
requested RX_SOFTWARE should be enough to get a skb->tstamp for all skbs. A 
workaround is to manually create a socket and turn on RX_SOFTWARE.

It will still be nice to get proper bpf_setsockopt() support for RX_SOFTWARE but 
it should be considered together with how SO_TIMESTAMPING_TX_* should work in 
bpf prog considering the TX tstamping does not have a workaround solution like 
RX_SOFTWARE.

It is probably cleaner to have a separate bit in sk->sk_tsflags for bpf such 
that the bpf prog won't be affected by the userspace turning it on/off and it 
won't change the userspace's expectation also (e.g. sk_error_queue and POLLERR).

The part that needs more thoughts in the tx tstamp is how to notify the bpf prog 
to consume it. Potentially the kernel can involve a bpf prog to collect the tx 
timestamp when the bpf bit in sk->sk_tsflags is set. An example on how TCP-CC is 
using it will help to think of the approach here.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists