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: <20260206074449.CydBDckN@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 08:44:49 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
	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>,
	"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 2026-02-05 16:41:03 [-0500], Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> Requiring OPT_TSONLY unless CAP_NET_RAW would break legacy users.

okay. Can we move the check to sock_set_timestamping()/ setsockopt()
time? On the plus side we could throw an error instead silently dropping
packets. This might be a late win given that you describe the users as
legacy users.
I'm not sure if the "permission" can change over time and so get revoked
while an application is running.

Sebastian