netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: Re-use and set mono_delivery

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: <0a0f948a-ca0e-4241-8a21-e7c7fc2ea471@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:19:02 -0700
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: "Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)" <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: kernel@...cinc.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: Re-use and set mono_delivery_time bit
 for userspace tstamp packets

On 3/13/24 1:59 PM, Abhishek Chauhan (ABC) wrote:
>>> I think all this is crying for another bit in skb to mean user_delivery_time
>>> (skb->tstamp depends on skb->sk->sk_clockid) while mono_delivery_time is the
>>> mono time either set by kernel-tcp or bpf.
>>
>> It does sound like the approach with least side effects.
>>
> Martin and Willem , while we are discussing to use seperate bit per skb to check if its
> SO_TXTIME from userspace or (rcv) timestamp . I came across two flags used in skbuff
> called in filter framework
> @tc_at_ingress: used within tc_classify to distinguish in/egress
> @from_ingress: packet was redirected from the ingress path
> 
> Since i believe the above testcase is based on redirecting from ingress to egress part
> why cant we use these already existing flags ? Please advice
> 
> I am not completely sure if we can use these flags to solve the bpf problem or not.

I don't see how they are related. It can tell where a skb is at. It cannot tell 
what is in skb->tstamp.