netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] net-timestamp: filter out report when setting SOF_TIMESTAMPING

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: <20240903121940.6390b958@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 12:19:40 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: willemb@...gle.com
Cc: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>, Willem de
 Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] net-timestamp: filter out report when
 setting SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 23:37:50 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> +	if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE &&
> +	    val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_RX_SOFTWARE_FILTER)
> +		return -EINVAL;


> -		if (READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags) & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE)
> +		if (tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE &&
> +		    (tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE ||
> +		     !(tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_RX_SOFTWARE_FILTER)))
>  			has_timestamping = true;
>  		else
>  			tss->ts[0] = (struct timespec64) {0};
>  	}

>  	memset(&tss, 0, sizeof(tss));
>  	tsflags = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags);
> -	if ((tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE) &&
> +	if ((tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE &&
> +	     (tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE ||
> +	     skb_is_err_queue(skb) ||
> +	     !(tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_RX_SOFTWARE_FILTER))) &&

Willem, do you prefer to keep the:

	tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE ||
	!(tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_RX_SOFTWARE_FILTER)

conditions?IIUC we prevent both from being set at once. So 

	!(tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_RX_SOFTWARE_FILTER)

is sufficient (and, subjectively, more intuitive).

Question #2 -- why are we only doing this for SW stamps?
HW stamps for TCP are also all or nothing.