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: <520fa72f-1105-42f6-a16f-050873be8742@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:33:20 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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 6/17/25 4:29 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.

Can we put it in a separate branch and merge it into both? Otherwise
my branch will get a bunch of unrelated commits, and pulling an
unnamed sha is pretty iffy.

-- 
Jens Axboe