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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b93f827f-90d1-4914-9244-4fb23b6cfbc6@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:03:42 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
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 13/11/2025 17:15, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> 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.

The original idea is to have SIOCGHWTSTAMP and netlink hwtstamp_get for
PHY devices. But as ioctl is deprecated interface, I'm thinking of
removing SIOCSHWTSTAMP in favor of netlink hwtstamp_set.