netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] bnx2x: 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: <3695841c-d9e7-4c71-a81d-4fca5e1de8fc@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 19:12:37 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: 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>,
 Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] bnx2x: convert to use ndo_hwtstamp
 callbacks

On 05/11/2025 18:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 13:33:08 +0000 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>>>    	bp->hwtstamp_ioctl_called = true;
>>>> -	bp->tx_type = config.tx_type;
>>>> -	bp->rx_filter = config.rx_filter;
>>>> +	bp->tx_type = config->tx_type;
>>>> +	bp->rx_filter = config->rx_filter;
>>>>    
>>>>    	rc = bnx2x_configure_ptp_filters(bp);
>>>
>>> bnx2x_configure_ptp_filters() may return -ERANGE if settings were not applied.
>>> This may already be semi-broken but with the get in place we will make
>>> it even worse.
>>
>> Ah, you mean in case of -ERANGE we will still have new filter
>> configuration set in bp object? It's easy to fix, but it will be
>> some kind of change of behavior. If it's acceptable, I'm happy to send
>> v3 of the patchset.>
> 
> True, you can probably make the -ERANGE handling a separate patch
> for ultimate clarity.

Well, looks like there is a special guard hwtstamp_ioctl_called
implemented, so it looks safe to move the check. I've sent these patches 
as a separate patchset.