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: <20260209114836.GPU-vnnh@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 12:48:36 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
	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 2026-02-09 10:43:55 [+0000], Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> 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

Yeah, but what is the legacy user here? If you enable HW-timestamps but
never set OPT_TSONLY and the sysctl is also 0 then you reply on the
CAP_NET_RAW later on. Right?

I just try to justify the CAP_NET_RAW check and if it is required to
move it earlier (where HW timestamps are enabled). And if the sysctl
check is enough then maybe it is not needed.
 
> > > > To receive these timestamps users have to get
> > > > CAP_NET_RAW permission, and it will work with the updated logic as well...

Sebastian