Thread (8 messages) 8 messages, 3 authors, 2018-09-21

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: 2018-08-31 14:00:42
Also in: linux-arch, linux-can, linux-hams, linux-sctp, lkml, netdev

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Willem de Bruijn
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 6:31 AM Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM Willem de Bruijn
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:05 AM Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
If this is the only valid implementation of .gettstamp, the indirect
call could be avoided in favor of a simple branch.
I thought about that as well, but I could not come up with a
good way to encode the difference between socket protocols
that allow timestamping and those that don't.

I think ideally we would just call sock_gettstamp() unconditonally
on every socket, and have that function decide whether timestamps
make sense or not. The part I did not understand is which ones
actually want the timestamps or not. Most protocols that
implement the ioctls also assign skb->tstamp, but there are some
protocols in which I could not see skb->tstamp ever being set,
and some that set it but don't seem to have the ioctls.
These probably only use cmsgs SCM_TIMESTAMP(NS|IMG)
to read timestamps.
Good point. FWIW, I have discussed with Deepa how those should
be modified for y2038, but we don't have any current patches for
those.
quoted
Looking at it again, it seems that sock_gettstamp() should
actually deal with this gracefully: it will return a -EINVAL
error condition if the timestamp remains at the
SK_DEFAULT_STAMP initial value, which is probably
just as appropriate (or better) as the current -ENOTTY
default, and if we are actually recording timestamps, we
might just as well report them.
Yes, that's a nice solution. There is always some risk in changing
error codes. But ioctl callers should be able to support newly
implemented functionality. Even if partially implemented and
returning ENOENT instead of ENOIOCTLCMD.
Ok, so do you think we should stay with the current version
for now, and change the two points later, or should I rework
it to integrate the locking and removing the callback?

I suppose the series actually gets nicer without the
callback, since I can simply add the generic timestamping
implementation first, and then remove the dead ioctl
handlers.

        Arnd
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help