netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 10/12] bpf: make TCP tx timestamp bpf extension work

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <739d6f98-8a44-446e-85a4-c499d154b57b@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 18:07:25 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, 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 bpf-next v8 10/12] bpf: make TCP tx timestamp bpf
 extension work

On 2/5/25 10:56 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
>>> I have to rephrase a bit in case Martin visits here soon: I will
>>> compare two approaches 1) reply value, 2) bpf kfunc and then see which
>>> way is better.
>>
>> I have already explained in details why the 1) reply value from the bpf prog
>> won't work. Please go back to that reply which has the context.
> 
> Yes, of course I saw this, but I said I need to implement and dig more
> into this on my own. One of my replies includes a little code snippet
> regarding reply value approach. I didn't expect you to misunderstand
> that I would choose reply value, so I rephrase it like above :)

I did see the code snippet which is incomplete, so I have to guess. afaik, it is 
not going to work. I was hoping to save some time without detouring to the 
reply-value path in case my earlier message was missed. I will stay quiet and 
wait for v9 first then to avoid extending this long thread further.