netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: pch_gbe: convert to use ndo

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <04d22523-34ed-45f1-ba59-ab8170d749e7@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 14:30:26 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: Sudarsana Kalluru <skalluru@...vell.com>,
 Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
 Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
 Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: pch_gbe: convert to use ndo_hwtstamp
 callbacks

On 31/10/2025 18:38, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:35:25 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
>>>   	case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_SYNC:
>>> -		adapter->hwts_rx_en = 0;
>>> +		adapter->hwts_rx_en = cfg->rx_filter;
>>
>> It seems there is a functional change here.
>>
>>> 		pch_ch_control_write(pdev, SLAVE_MODE | CAP_MODE0);
> 
> Good catch. Looks like SLAVE | MODE0 translates to 0 | 0
> so presumably the device doesn't actually support timestamping
> of V1 L4 SYNC messages? Unclear what to do about this.
> Maybe let's leave it be? keep the hwts_rx_en = 0; ?
> Not strictly correct but at least we won't break anything.

Ok, it looked like typo as the function actually does the register
manipulation while it's not doing anything for disabling RX timestamping
which probably means it's enabled by default.
But as the code was added back in 2012, and nobody complained, we should 
probably keep it as is. I'll send v2 shortly.