netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware timestamping statistics

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: <20240313184017.794a2044@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:40:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>
Cc: ahmed.zaki@...el.com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
 alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, andrew@...n.ch, corbet@....net,
 davem@...emloft.net, dtatulea@...dia.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
 gal@...dia.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
 jiri@...nulli.us, joabreu@...opsys.com, justinstitt@...gle.com,
 kory.maincent@...tlin.com, leon@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liuhangbin@...il.com,
 maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 paul.greenwalt@...el.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
 rdunlap@...radead.org, richardcochran@...il.com, saeed@...nel.org,
 tariqt@...dia.com, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, vladimir.oltean@....com,
 wojciech.drewek@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware
 timestamping statistics

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:50:39 -0700 Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> > Should we give some guidance to drivers which "ignore" time stamping
> > requests if they used up all the "slots"? Even if just temporary until
> > they are fixed? Maybe we can add after all the fields something like:
> >
> >   For drivers which ignore further timestamping requests when there are
> >   too many in flight, the ignored requests are currently not counted by
> >   any of the statistics.  
> 
> I was actually thinking it would be better to merge them into the error
> counter temporarily. Reason being is that in the case Intel notices that
> their slots are full, they just drop traffic from my understanding
> today. If the error counters increment in that situation, it helps with
> the debug to a degree. EBUSY is an error in general.

That works, too, let's recommend it (FWIW no preference whether
in the entry for @err or somewhere separately in the kdoc).