Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net-timestamp: add strict check when setting tx flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:48 PM Vadim Fedorenko
<vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2024 10:24, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Even though this case is unlikely to happen, we have to avoid such
> > a case occurring at an earlier point: the sk_rmem_alloc could get
> > increased because of inserting more and more skbs into the errqueue
> > when calling __skb_complete_tx_timestamp(). This bad case would stop
> > the socket transmitting soon.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   net/core/sock.c | 4 ++++
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> > index fe87f9bd8f16..4bddd6f62e4f 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ int sock_set_timestamping(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >       if (val & ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_MASK)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >
> > +     if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK &&
> > +         !(val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE))
> > +             return -EINVAL;
>
> SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK contains SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE.
> That means that there will be no option to enable HW TX timestamping
> without enabling software timestamping. I believe this is wrong
> restriction.

Thanks! You are right. I should have realized that. I need to get rid
of this one.

Thanks,
Jason





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux