Re: [PATCH net 1/2] socket: fix option SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW

[Deepa Dinamani]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:43 PM Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 8:30 PM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:32 AM Christian Eggers <ceggers@xxxxxxx> 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.
> >
> > The SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW is reset only in the case when
> > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE is not set.
> > Note that we only call sock_enable_timestamp() at that time.
> >
> > Why would SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW be relevant otherwise?
>
> Other timestamps can be configured, such as hardware timestamps.
>
> As the follow-on patch shows, there is also the issue of overlap
> between SO_TIMESTAMP(NS) and SO_TIMESTAMPING.

I see. Thanks for clarification. I think I had missed that you could
have both software and hardware timestamps enabled at the same time.

> Don't select OLD on timestamp disable, which may only disable
> some of the ongoing timestamping.
>
> Setting based on the syscall is simpler, too. __sock_set_timestamps
> already uses for SO_TIMESTAMP(NS) the valbool approach I
> suggest for SO_TIMESTAMPING.
>
> The fallthrough can also be removed. My rough patch missed that.

Sounds good.

-Deepa