netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 08/15] net-timestamp: support sw SCM_TSTAMP

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: <ef391d15-4968-42c6-b107-cbd941d98e73@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:48:36 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
 willemb@...gle.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
 eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
 john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
 haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 08/15] net-timestamp: support sw
 SCM_TSTAMP_SND for bpf extension

On 1/12/25 3:37 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> Support SCM_TSTAMP_SND case. Then we will get the software
> timestamp when the driver is about to send the skb. Later, I
> will support the hardware timestamp.

> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> index 169c6d03d698..0fb31df4ed95 100644
> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> @@ -5578,6 +5578,9 @@ static void __skb_tstamp_tx_bpf(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sock *sk, int tstype
>   	case SCM_TSTAMP_SCHED:
>   		op = BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SCHED_OPT_CB;
>   		break;
> +	case SCM_TSTAMP_SND:
> +		op = BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SW_OPT_CB;

For the hwtstamps case, is skb_hwtstamps(skb) set? From looking at a few 
drivers, it does not look like it. I don't see the hwtstamps support in patch 10 
either. What did I miss ?

> +		break;
>   	default:
>   		return;
>   	}