From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Christian Eggers <ceggers@arri.de>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] socket: fix option SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 20:23:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSfkHkyBarmp-wi-zo-04fPWAOu_6fxwGPVAo7S5xP6c8w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201009103121.1004-1-ceggers@arri.de>
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 6:32 AM Christian Eggers <ceggers@arri.de> wrote:
>
> The comparison of optname with SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW is wrong way around,
> so SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW will first be set and than reset again. Additionally
> move it out of the test for SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE as this seems
> unrelated.
>
> 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: 9718475e6908 ("socket: Add SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW")
> Signed-off-by: Christian Eggers <ceggers@arri.de>
> ---
> net/core/sock.c | 9 ++++-----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 34a8d12e38d7..3926804702c1 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1024,16 +1024,15 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
> }
>
> sk->sk_tsflags = val;
> + if (optname != SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW)
> + sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW);
> +
> if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE)
> sock_enable_timestamp(sk,
> SOCK_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE);
> - else {
> - if (optname == SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW)
> - sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW);
> -
The idea is to select new vs old behavior depending on which of the
two setsockopts is called.
This suggested fix still sets and clears the flag if calling
SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW to disable timestamping. Instead, how about
case SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW:
- sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW);
fallthrough;
case SO_TIMESTAMPING_OLD:
[..]
+ sock_valbool_flag(sk, SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW,
+ optname == SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW);
+
if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID &&
That is a subtle behavioral change, because it now leaves
SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW set also when timestamping is turned off. But this is
harmless, as in that case the versioning does not matter. A more
pedantic version would be
+ sock_valbool_flag(sk, SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW,
+ optname == SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW &&
+ val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-10 0:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-09 10:31 Christian Eggers
2020-10-09 10:31 ` [PATCH net 2/2] socket: don't clear SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW when SO_TIMESTAMPNS is disabled Christian Eggers
2020-10-10 0:34 ` Willem de Bruijn
2020-10-10 3:38 ` Deepa Dinamani
2020-10-10 0:23 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2020-10-10 0:30 ` [PATCH net 1/2] socket: fix option SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW Deepa Dinamani
2020-10-10 0:43 ` Willem de Bruijn
2020-10-10 3:09 ` Deepa Dinamani
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+FuTSfkHkyBarmp-wi-zo-04fPWAOu_6fxwGPVAo7S5xP6c8w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=ceggers@arri.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®