On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 3:19 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/8/24 2:51 AM, Jason Xing wrote: > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Now we allow users to set tsflags through bpf_setsockopt. What I > > want to do is passing SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE flag, so that > > we can generate rx timestamps the moment the skb traverses through > > driver. > > > > Here is an example: > > > > case BPF_SOCK_OPS_ACTIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB: > > case BPF_SOCK_OPS_PASSIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB: > > sock_opt = SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE; > > bpf_setsockopt(skops, SOL_SOCKET, SO_TIMESTAMPING, > > &sock_opt, sizeof(sock_opt)); > > break; > > > > In this way, we can use bpf program that help us generate and report > > rx timestamp. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > net/core/filter.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > > index bd0d08bf76bb..9ce99d320571 100644 > > --- a/net/core/filter.c > > +++ b/net/core/filter.c > > @@ -5225,6 +5225,9 @@ static int sol_socket_sockopt(struct sock *sk, int optname, > > break; > > case SO_BINDTODEVICE: > > break; > > + case SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW: > > + case SO_TIMESTAMPING_OLD: > > I believe this change was proposed before. It will change the user expectation > on the sk_error_queue. It needs some bits/fields/knobs for bpf. I think this > point is similar to other's earlier comments in this thread. Thanks for your reply. After seeing what you mentioned, I searched through the mailing list and found one [1] which was designed to fetch hardware timestamps. [1]：https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/51fd5249-140a-4f1b-b20e-703f159e88a3@xxxxxxxxx/T/ > > I only have a chance to briefly look at it. I think it is useful. This > bpf/timestamp feature request has come up before. At the very beginning, I had no intention to use bpf_setsockopt() to retrieve the rx timestamp because it will override sk_tsflags, but I cannot implement a good way like what I did to tx path: only setting skb's field. I'm not sure if this override behaviour is acceptable, so I post it to know what the bpf experts' suggestions are. > > A high level comment. The current timestamp should work for non tcp sock? The > bpf/timestamp solution should be able to also. For now, it only supports TCP proto. I would like to quickly implement a framework which is also suitable for other protos. TCP is just a start point. > > sockops is tcp centric. From looking at patch 9 that needs to initialize 4 args, > this interface feels old and not sure we want to extend to other sock types. > This needs some thoughts. For me, I have interests to extend to other sock types. But I'm supposed to ask Willem's opinion first. +Willem de Bruijn Do you want this bpf extension feature to extend to other protos? Thanks, Jason
