Just after sending the back port yesterday I discovered that stable patches
related to networking should go via netdev. So I additionally posted it there.
regards
Christian
On Thursday, 29 October 2020, 12:04:14 CET, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:15:26PM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote:
> > [ Upstream commit 4e3bbb33e6f36e4b05be1b1b9b02e3dd5aaa3e69 ]
> >
> > SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW (timespec64 instead of timespec) is also used for
> > hardware time stamps (configured via SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW).
> >
> > User space (ptp4l) first configures hardware time stamping via
> > SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW which sets SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW. In the next step, ptp4l
> > disables SO_TIMESTAMPNS(_NEW) (software time stamps), but this must not
> > switch hardware time stamps back to "32 bit mode".
> >
> > This problem happens on 32 bit platforms were the libc has already
> > switched to struct timespec64 (from SO_TIMExxx_OLD to SO_TIMExxx_NEW
> > socket options). ptp4l complains with "missing timestamp on transmitted
> > peer delay request" because the wrong format is received (and
> > discarded).
> >
> > Fixes: 887feae36aee ("socket: Add SO_TIMESTAMP[NS]_NEW")
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Eggers <ceggers@xxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I just got your E-mail(s) that this patch has been applied to 5.8 and 5.9.
> > This is a back port for the same problem on 5.4. It does the same as the
> > upstream patch, only the affected code is at another position here. Please
> > decide yourself whether the Acked-by: tags (from the upstream patch)
> > should
> > be kept or removed.
> >
> > This back port is only required for 5.4, older kernels like 4.19 are not
> > affected.
> >
> > regards
> > Christian
>
> Now queued up, thanks.
>
> greg k-h
