On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 7:49 PM Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > I will drop this patch because I just tested with my program in the local machine and found there is one mistake I made about calculating the diff between those two . Sorry for the noise. Well, I only need to send a V2 patch of patch [3/3] in the next few days. BTW, please allow me to ask one question unrelated to this patch again. I do wonder: if we batch the recv skbs from the errqueue when calling tcp_recvmsg() -> inet_recv_error(), it could break users, right? Thanks, Jason
