Re: [PATCH net] wireguard: queueing: preserve tstamp_type in wg_reset_packet()
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date: 2026-08-31 03:25:31
Also in:
lkml
Hi Ramses, On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 01:52:56PM +0200, Ramses de Norre via B4 Relay wrote:
From: Ramses de Norre <redacted>
Sending traffic through a wireguard tunnel on a host using the fq
qdisc fills the log with:
fq: likely mono tstamp with tstamp_type 0
An skb carries a timestamp in skb->tstamp and, separately, a
skb->tstamp_type field recording which clock that timestamp came from.
The two have to agree.
When wireguard encapsulates a packet it calls wg_reset_packet(), which
clears the fields that must not leak from the inner packet into the
tunnel packet. It does so in two steps:
skb_scrub_packet(skb, true);
memset(&skb->headers, 0, sizeof(skb->headers));
skb_scrub_packet() deliberately keeps skb->tstamp when it holds a
monotonic timestamp: that value is the time the packet is scheduled to
be sent, and the qdisc still needs it. The memset then zeroes
skb->tstamp_type, because that field sits inside the headers group
while skb->tstamp does not. The packet therefore leaves wireguard
carrying a monotonic timestamp labelled as a realtime one.
Nothing noticed until commit c4f796c4f16b ("net_sched: sch_fq: convert
skb->tstamp if not monotonic"): fq used to assume every timestamp was
monotonic. It now consults tstamp_type, spots the mismatch, warns, and
falls back to treating the value as monotonic. Pacing still ends up
correct, so the log spam is the actual problem.
Save tstamp_type before the memset and restore it when encapsulating,
next to the hash fields that are already carried over this way. When
decapsulating it stays zeroed, which is right: an incoming packet's
timestamp is a realtime receive timestamp.
Fixes: de799101519a ("net: Add skb_clear_tstamp() to keep the mono delivery_time")
Signed-off-by: Ramses de Norre <redacted>Thanks for this. I've queued this up in the wireguard tree. One thing I'm wondering is whether your Fixes: line is correct. Would c4f796c4f16b be a better candidate than de799101519a? Or maybe even 4d25ca2d6801 is best? Jason