Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v3] igb: Retrieve Tx timestamp directly from interrupt for i210

[Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>]

On 05/02/2026 14:51, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-02-05 11:56:44 [+0000], Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>> On 05/02/2026 10:37, Loktionov, Aleksandr wrote:
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);  <- RT mutex can sleep
>>
>> Hmm... that actually means we have some drivers broken for RT kernels if
>> they are processing TX timestamps within a single irq vector:
>> - hisilicon/hns3
>> - intel/i40e (and ice probably)
>> - marvell/mvpp2
>>
>> For igb/igc/i40e it's still OK to process TX timestamps directly in
>> MSI-X configuration, as ring processing has separate vector, right?
> 
> The statement made above is not accurate. Each and every driver does
> request_irq() and here on PREEMPT_RT you can freely acquire spinlock_t.
> 
> But !RT looks problematic…
> 
> __skb_tstamp_tx() invokes skb_may_tx_timestamp() which should exit early
> most of the time due to the passed bool (which is true) or
> sysctl_tstamp_allow_data which is true. However, should both be false
> then it tries to
> 	read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> 
> where lockdep will complain because this lock is now acquired with
> disabled interrupts.
> 
> The function will attempt do free the fresh/ cloned skb in error case
> via kfree_skb(). Since it is fresh skb, sk_buff::destructor is NULL and
> the warning in skb_release_head_state() won't trigger.
> 
> So the only thing that bothers me is the read_lock_bh() in
> skb_may_tx_timestamp() which deadlocks if the socket is write-locked on
> the same CPU.

Alright. Now you make me think whether we should enforce OPT_TSONLY
option on socket which doesn't have CAP_NET_RAW? Then we can get rid of 
this check, and in case sysctl was flipped off - drop TX timestamps as
it's done now?