netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v3] igb: Retrieve Tx timestamp directly from interrupt for i210

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: <76acd5cc-eb6f-4c56-a5e6-f6413736afbb@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:48:01 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "Loktionov, Aleksandr" <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>,
 Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
 "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
 "Kitszel, Przemyslaw" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
 Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
 "Gomes, Vinicius" <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
 "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v3] igb: Retrieve Tx timestamp
 directly from interrupt for i210

On 05/02/2026 16:43, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-02-05 16:27:03 [+0000], Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>> So the only thing that bothers me is the read_lock_bh() in
>>> skb_may_tx_timestamp() which deadlocks if the socket is write-locked on
>>> the same CPU.
>>
>> Alright. Now you make me think whether we should enforce OPT_TSONLY
>> option on socket which doesn't have CAP_NET_RAW? Then we can get rid of this
>> check, and in case sysctl was flipped off - drop TX timestamps as
>> it's done now?
> 
> This would "fix" this problem for all users which do deliver the
> timestamp from their IRQ handler instead of napi. There are a few of
> those…
> This would be considered stable material, right? (despite the fact that
> we have it for quite some time and nobody complained so far).

cc: Willem as he is the author of the check introduced back in 2015.

But it's more like a question to maintainers whether it is acceptable
way of "fixing" drivers or it's no-go solution