netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net-timestamp: add strict check when setting tx flags

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: <CAL+tcoCc5H4tZ6m+aWUWPJnJUHbYV=upEZLSZ41PvuU9mw0kRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:24:02 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, 
	shuah@...nel.org, willemb@...gle.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net-timestamp: add strict check when setting
 tx flags

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:48 PM Vadim Fedorenko
<vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2024 10:24, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> >
> > Even though this case is unlikely to happen, we have to avoid such
> > a case occurring at an earlier point: the sk_rmem_alloc could get
> > increased because of inserting more and more skbs into the errqueue
> > when calling __skb_complete_tx_timestamp(). This bad case would stop
> > the socket transmitting soon.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > ---
> >   net/core/sock.c | 4 ++++
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> > index fe87f9bd8f16..4bddd6f62e4f 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ int sock_set_timestamping(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >       if (val & ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_MASK)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >
> > +     if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK &&
> > +         !(val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE))
> > +             return -EINVAL;
>
> SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK contains SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE.
> That means that there will be no option to enable HW TX timestamping
> without enabling software timestamping. I believe this is wrong
> restriction.

Thanks! You are right. I should have realized that. I need to get rid
of this one.

Thanks,
Jason