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: <8e762437-69f9-40d7-bb75-3a45bef1d5d6@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 10:43:55 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: 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 09/02/2026 09:06, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-02-08 11:25:40 [-0500], Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>>> But it's more like a question to maintainers whether it is acceptable
>>>>> way of "fixing" drivers or it's no-go solution
>>>>
>>>> Requiring OPT_TSONLY unless CAP_NET_RAW would break legacy users.
>>>
>>> Well, they are kinda broken already. Without OPT_TSONLY and CAP_NET_RAW all TX
>>> timestamps are silently dropped.
>>
>> Are you referring to sysctl_tstamp_allow_data?
>>
>> That is enabled by default.
> 
> Yes. If so, then we don't need the check below which requires
> sk_callback_lock.
> 
> Are SIOCSHWTSTAMP the legacy users or the ones which do not set
> OPT_TSONLY?
> 
> I would suggest to move the CAP_NET_RAW check to the point where
> timestamping is getting enabled.
> Also if ndo_hwtstamp_set is the preferred method of getting things done,
> I could check how many old ones are can be easily converted…

Looks like you are mixing things. SIOCSHWTSTAMP/ndo_hwtstamp_set are HW
configuration calls while OPT_TSONLY is socket option, which is setup 
via setsockopt, you can find points searching for
SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_TSONLY in the sources, basically
sock_set_timestamping() is the function to check

> 
>>> To receive these timestamps users have to get
>>> CAP_NET_RAW permission, and it will work with the updated logic as well...
> 
> Sebastian