Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next] net: Preserve skb delivery time during forward

quoted

quoted

@@ -530,7 +538,14 @@ struct skb_shared_info {
        /* Warning: this field is not always filled in (UFO)! */
        unsigned short  gso_segs;
        struct sk_buff  *frag_list;
-       struct skb_shared_hwtstamps hwtstamps;
+       union {
+               /* If SKBTX_DELIVERY_TSTAMP is set in tx_flags,
+                * tx_delivery_tstamp is stored instead of
+                * hwtstamps.
+                */

Should we just encode the timebase and/or type { timestamp,
delivery_time } in th lower bits of the timestamp field? Its
resolution is higher than actual clock precision.

In skb->tstamp ?

Yes. Arguably a hack, but those bits are in the noise now, and it
avoids the clone issue with skb_shinfo (and scarcity of flag bits
there).

quoted

is non-zero skb->tstamp test not sufficient, instead of
SKBTX_DELIVERY_TSTAMP_ALLOW_FWD.

It is if only called on the egress path. Is bpf on ingress the only
reason for this?

Ah. ic.  meaning testing non-zero skb->tstamp and then call
skb_save_delivery_time() only during the veth-egress-path:
somewhere in veth_xmit() => veth_forward_skb() but before
skb->tstamp was reset to 0 in __dev_forward_skb().

Right. If delivery_time is the only use of skb->tstamp on egress, and
timestamp is the only use on ingress, then the only time the
delivery_time needs to be cached if when looping from egress to
ingress and this field is non-zero.

Keep *_forward() and bpf_out_*() unchanged (i.e. keep skb->tstamp = 0)
because the skb->tstamp could be stamped by net_timestamp_check().

Then SKBTX_DELIVERY_TSTAMP_ALLOW_FWD is not needed.

Did I understand your suggestion correctly?

I think so.

But the reality is complicated if something may be setting a delivery
time on ingress (a BPF filter?)

However, we still need a bit to distinguish tx_delivery_tstamp
from hwtstamps.

quoted

quoted

+{
+       if (skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags & SKBTX_DELIVERY_TSTAMP_ALLOW_FWD) {
+               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_delivery_tstamp = skb->tstamp;
+               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_DELIVERY_TSTAMP;
+               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags &= ~SKBTX_DELIVERY_TSTAMP_ALLOW_FWD;
+       }

Is this only called when there are no clones/shares?

No, I don't think so.  TCP clone it.  I also started thinking about
this after noticing a mistake in the change in  __tcp_transmit_skb().

There are other places that change tx_flags, e.g. tcp_offload.c.
It is not shared at those places or there is some specific points
in the stack that is safe to change ?

The packet probably is not yet shared. Until the TCP stack gives a
packet to the IP layer, it can treat it as exclusive.

Though it does seem that these fields are accessed in a possibly racy
manner. Drivers with hardware tx timestamp offload may set
skb_shinfo(orig_skb)->tx_flags & SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS without checking
whether the skb may be cloned.