From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E391525A647; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 01:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738720667; cv=none; b=eCTCcHtX3Bz2gNffrUPdzGaTnSB7icHkheg7EL8oAbz/tPOcvcI8SCoGhax9gl4uNcW5kzWb1rHeKJKM9dDO6Fk6YiEBzNaiauLH9eG+0bLFTGKx4ZQ2whIUBftJxDY2khIAvh3T7PyYtaWPXQs9TJzxR0Osx3F5igFjSvGoD8g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738720667; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NCHRxNFaax6UpmkiT79K6Z728htXf+Duy37o3WreZZ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FMZ5A3uJ9k87MzXMq4MD2Dxl6OxQIcRpMgAtNkGB2EBg5QhgUaDmINH5X1A4DHhBXzAgBlAxtCcGRpmF03M5uGjab4Xre31gzQb0Zjc+Tlu5V1bkDQb9SvnI8Vpg7LX6VA+6O37pIbPbmMxMURYrhTtGQN0ubjYOW3J28sXO+y4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=iep4/hb5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="iep4/hb5" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 409C8C4CEE4; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 01:57:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738720666; bh=NCHRxNFaax6UpmkiT79K6Z728htXf+Duy37o3WreZZ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=iep4/hb5amqN6IYzEsEnLNr7ftbQ5oBIETopmxqwmozkx5eBVoryFnMfaR47Q/wdJ j3/9Ce/qe6F6XSMSexmYgR23T8/4RgvpAV++3o1596VaYxztstkM90fKgDYdxJ3Ph9 UTiDoTFDoGvMwQjo6NfEtPD8669ti0H0JuEEazWc+Gey9Swk81dqnrkcDDbCztmVT0 JnAsC3IM+jJ939FEjaYrNC45i7O6psUN1Gr6y6jdFay9NtbLu7T1m0KvdH4yDygOLR nY29h56AnZQb9YsyvYYskdrv4CYIXIvGvYQRxr1wx8B/Ijs6AKf+bN/JGUZ5dTkuWD W7Ug2fYYVj/ig== Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:57:44 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jason Xing Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, dsahern@kernel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, willemb@google.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, horms@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 10/12] bpf: make TCP tx timestamp bpf extension work Message-ID: <20250204175744.3f92c33e@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20250204183024.87508-11-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> References: <20250204183024.87508-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <20250204183024.87508-11-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 02:30:22 +0800 Jason Xing wrote: > + if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_SOCK_OPS) && > + SK_BPF_CB_FLAG_TEST(sk, SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING) && skb) { > + struct skb_shared_info *shinfo = skb_shinfo(skb); > + struct tcp_skb_cb *tcb = TCP_SKB_CB(skb); > + > + tcb->txstamp_ack_bpf = 1; > + shinfo->tx_flags |= SKBTX_BPF; > + shinfo->tskey = TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + skb->len - 1; > + } If BPF program is attached we'll timestamp all skbs? Am I reading this right? Wouldn't it be better to let BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SND_CB return whether it's interested in tracing current packet all the way thru the stack?