Jason Xing wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:39 PM Willem de Bruijn > <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > It is up to the application to read from the error queue frequently > > enough and/or increase SO_RCVBUF. > > Sure thing. If we test it without setting SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE on > the loopback, it will soon stop. That's the reason why I tried to add > the restriction just in case. I don't follow at all. That bit does not affect the core issue: that the application is not clearing its error queue quickly enough. > > > > > 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; > > > + > > > > This breaks hardware timestamping > > Yes, and sorry about that. I'll fix this. As is I don't understand the purpose of this patch. Please do not just resubmit with a change, but explain the problem and suggested solution first. > > > > > if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID_TCP && > > > !(val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID)) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > -- > > > 2.37.3 > > > > > > >
