From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: "Jörn-Thorben Hinz" <jthinz@mailbox.tu-berlin.de>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] bpf, net: Allow setting SO_TIMESTAMPING* from BPF
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:36:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAF=yD-K7NiEROeHM5GzW2ArtprcYg7WFwPFz7+0LOOT2DCY_+A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bdffeca8e222b0126100dec5dcd9d9b186ea6905.camel@mailbox.tu-berlin.de>
> On Mon, 2023-07-03 at 14:25 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Jörn-Thorben Hinz wrote:
> > > BPF applications, e.g., a TCP congestion control, might benefit
> > > from
> > > precise packet timestamps. These timestamps are already available
> > > in
> > > __sk_buff and bpf_sock_ops, but could not be requested: A BPF
> > > program
> > > was not allowed to set SO_TIMESTAMPING* on a socket. This change
> > > enables
> > > BPF programs to actively request the generation of timestamps from
> > > a
> > > stream socket.
> > >
> > > To reuse the setget_sockopt BPF prog test for
> > > bpf_{get,set}sockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW), also implement the
> > > missing
> > > getsockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW) in the network stack.
> > >
> > > I reckon the way I added getsockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW) causes an
> > > API
> > > change: For existing users that set SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW but queried
> > > SO_TIMESTAMPING_OLD afterwards, it would now look as if no
> > > timestamping
> > > flags have been set. Is this an acceptable change? If not, I’m
> > > happy to
> > > change getsockopt() to only be strict about the newly-implemented
> > > getsockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW), or not distinguish between
> > > SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW and SO_TIMESTAMPING_OLD at all.
> >
> > Yeah, I think it would be best if we keep the old behavior and let
> > SO_TIMESTAMPING_OLD return timestamps for both new/old. It looks
> > like it should be relatively easy to implement?
> Alright, I guessed that would be preferred.
>
> Yes, if there is no objection to making the added
> getsockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW) this tiny bit more “strict”, it’s just
> a matter of modifying the if inserted in sk_getsockopt(). (And, well,
> in the other case I would even remove this if.)
The difference is in the struct that is returned, on 32-bit platforms.
Both calls should always be allowed? See also
put_cmsg_scm_timestamping64 vs put_cmsg_scm_timestamping.
For the second patch: the _OLD/_NEW was introduced to work around
limitations on 32-bit platforms. This is intended to be transparent to
users, by defining SO_TIMESTAMPING accordingly.
Can the new BPF code always enforce the 64-bit version, that is, only
implement the _NEW variants? And perhaps just call it SO_TIMESTAMPING
directly.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-04 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-03 17:50 [PATCH 0/2] bpf, net: Allow setting SO_TIMESTAMPING* from BPF Jörn-Thorben Hinz
2023-07-03 17:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] net: Implement missing getsockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW) Jörn-Thorben Hinz
2023-07-03 17:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] bpf: Allow setting SO_TIMESTAMPING* with bpf_setsockopt() Jörn-Thorben Hinz
2023-07-03 21:25 ` [PATCH 0/2] bpf, net: Allow setting SO_TIMESTAMPING* from BPF John Fastabend
2023-07-04 16:11 ` Jörn-Thorben Hinz
2023-07-04 19:36 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2023-07-04 20:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
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='CAF=yD-K7NiEROeHM5GzW2ArtprcYg7WFwPFz7+0LOOT2DCY_+A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jthinz@mailbox.tu-berlin.de \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).