netdev - Re: [TEST] txtimestamp.sh pains after netdev foundation migration

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: <20260108123845.7868cec4@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 12:38:45 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [TEST] txtimestamp.sh pains after netdev foundation migration

On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 14:02:15 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Increasing tolerance should work.
> 
> The current values are pragmatic choices to be so low as to minimize
> total test runtime, but high enough to avoid flakes. Well..
> 
> If increasing tolerance, we also need to increase the time the test
> waits for all notifications to arrive, cfg_sleep_usec.

To be clear the theory is that we got scheduled out between taking the
USR timestamp and sending the packet. But once the packet is in the
kernel it seems to flow, so AFAIU cfg_sleep_usec can remain untouched.

Thinking about it more - maybe what blocks us is the print? Maybe under
vng there's a non-trivial chance that a print to stderr ends up
blocking on serial and schedules us out? I mean maybe we should:

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c
index abcec47ec2e6..e2273fdff495 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c
@@ -207,12 +207,10 @@ static void __print_timestamp(const char *name, struct timespec *cur,
        fprintf(stderr, "\n");
 }
 
-static void print_timestamp_usr(void)
+static void record_timestamp_usr(void)
 {
        if (clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts_usr))
                error(1, errno, "clock_gettime");
-
-       __print_timestamp("  USR", &ts_usr, 0, 0);
 }
 
 static void check_timestamp_usr(void)
@@ -636,8 +634,6 @@ static void do_test(int family, unsigned int report_opt)
                        fill_header_udp(buf + off, family == PF_INET);
                }
 
-               print_timestamp_usr();
-
                iov.iov_base = buf;
                iov.iov_len = total_len;
 
@@ -692,10 +688,14 @@ static void do_test(int family, unsigned int report_opt)
 
                }
 
+               record_timestamp_usr();
                val = sendmsg(fd, &msg, 0);
                if (val != total_len)
                        error(1, errno, "send");
 
+               /* Avoid I/O between taking ts_usr and sendmsg() */
+               __print_timestamp("  USR", &ts_usr, 0, 0);
+
                check_timestamp_usr();
 
                /* wait for all errors to be queued, else ACKs arrive OOO */

> Since the majority of errors happen on the first measurement, I was
> thinking of a different approach of just taking that as a warm up
> measurement.
> 
> But I'd also like to poke some more to understand what makes that
> run stand out.