On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:54 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/24 9:06 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > +static int bpf_sock_set_timestamping(struct sock *sk,
> > + struct so_timestamping *timestamping)
> > +{
> > + u32 flags = timestamping->flags;
> > +
> > + if (flags & ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_MASK)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (!(flags & (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SCHED | SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
> > + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_ACK)))
>
> hmm... Does it mean at least one of the bit must be set and cannot be completely
> cleared once it has been set before?
Yes. Because in the current BPF extension feature I don't support all
the original SO_TIMESTAMPING flags (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_*) . When it
comes to clearing flags, I cannot find a proper time/chance to clear
them. That's the reason why I don't implement it.
