netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] io_uring cmd for tx timestamps

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: <20250617152923.01c274a1@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:29:23 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, Vadim
 Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, "David S .
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Jason Xing
 <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] io_uring cmd for tx timestamps

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 08:52:35 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/16/25 3:46 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > Vadim Fedorenko suggested to add an alternative API for receiving
> > tx timestamps through io_uring. The series introduces io_uring socket
> > cmd for fetching tx timestamps, which is a polled multishot request,
> > i.e. internally polling the socket for POLLERR and posts timestamps
> > when they're arrives. For the API description see Patch 5.
> > 
> > It reuses existing timestamp infra and takes them from the socket's
> > error queue. For networking people the important parts are Patch 1,
> > and io_uring_cmd_timestamp() from Patch 5 walking the error queue.
> > 
> > It should be reasonable to take it through the io_uring tree once
> > we have consensus, but let me know if there are any concerns.  
> 
> Sounds like we're good to queue this up for 6.17?

I think so. Can I apply patch 1 off v6.16-rc1 and merge it in to
net-next? Hash will be 2410251cde0bac9f6, you can pull that across.
LMK if that works.