netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/9] phy: add hwtstamp

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: <aRYSPKmGennbjxwj@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 17:15:40 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Andrei Botila <andrei.botila@....nxp.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
	Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/9] phy: add hwtstamp_get callback to phy
 drivers

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 05:05:18PM +0000, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 13/11/2025 16:57, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 04:48:00PM +0000, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> > > If the above is correct, then yes, there is no reason to implement
> > > SIOCGHWTSTAMP, and even more, SIOCSHWTSTAMP can be technically removed
> > > as a dead code.
> > 
> > I think you're missing the clarification in this sentence "... to
> > implement SIOCGHWTSTAMP in phy_mii_ioctl(), and even more,
> > SIOCSHWTSTAMP can be removed from this function as dead code.""
> 
> Ok, it's better to "there is no reason to have SIOCGHWTSTAMP chunk,
> provided in patch 2 of this series"
> 
> Or are you asking for the clarification of SIOCSHWTSTAMP removal?
> I don't plan to remove it, at least not in this series. I just wanted
> to mention that there will be no way to reach SIOCSHWTSTAMP case in
> phy_mii_ioctl() from user-space ABI. Does it make sense?

I'm not asking. I'm trying to work out what you're trying to say, and
suggesting a clarification to your last paragraph that would clarify
what I thought you mean. Now I'm even more confused about what you're
proposing.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!