From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 8087A328623; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 07:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770363893; cv=none; b=MZfZCWJexg8VVzjYd53Pw8jeYxqbQ8NH9PXySdWRaCSJcmaFal5vD3cgQ3zahoXUk13LEjvqpbVe+Gs6H9Xrrv1zQ1oKT6d3H4dFEqPfTWaGG/CKU7C4PH3FLveYiqyTB8mzDf02UuleOR/hzhxfdo7C54EBDPG4sFLmhfRSxc4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770363893; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sFavFKGwS58WDsYBtzJEnHEjzWndWpmKa5rsxOktmXs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OjupYm7lBRansfh2Im0Uhft8ZScNEZMUA0OThEAV3ieBWAabncJhlfrtOAeEumd5WdtE3eI8Sul5TNrYcO/SUFZJ965qc9njaaD1yaZbVx8NreiB7WbXculfOiWOnnMqlsQ9FBagwTdwZMCOq2a0Jblbz5z6UJBbQx2A2sMP9Wo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=yU7OniFO; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=N5W2jvDG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="yU7OniFO"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="N5W2jvDG" Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 08:44:49 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1770363891; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xpzWp3yq3XiRmUCcwaPqU4QiBYrxfXsSEJ+PJeVd5pQ=; b=yU7OniFO6DTMhIXOIMwHx7vYb7Fc4wabicbGx8o5Ba3wljCAO+o9srwyg4uB3E89V8HsQ+ 1ctbCpBpTXlokDCVTfZL1xXfW07uhvABrJ7xoclNksmrKiREuozwOheb0Hmpd1E3l2k/Bn Ua9Y2RrUuhzXPFnXZ0LDY9Vmo9Iby+wWEsV/U897nWGyqJZJNTxmKSgmhPY5H68vZrDVGR Kj2kXsnsdbzhwuKjAsStvLIR9oTcD+1BQs2cTgr1pVn+aU05Fx9vpP0QRRez7PAKERPEod wj9WztLnKDdVxM/7xvyvXsYXAHq+0RJv8d0S1y2EgpCwjWJZ5RJ2wCl9SIYemg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1770363891; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xpzWp3yq3XiRmUCcwaPqU4QiBYrxfXsSEJ+PJeVd5pQ=; b=N5W2jvDG3T5AdCJ5JQCIxnv7FBwjhTyLCY2tspJ0SgS8bn/Nwnk0lIxL60AORnUhZJWbuC A6C1iKTuhsJ2oKDQ== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Willem de Bruijn Cc: Vadim Fedorenko , Willem de Bruijn , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , "Loktionov, Aleksandr" , Kurt Kanzenbach , "Nguyen, Anthony L" , "Kitszel, Przemyslaw" , Paul Menzel , "Gomes, Vinicius" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Richard Cochran , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Lunn , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" , "Keller, Jacob E" Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v3] igb: Retrieve Tx timestamp directly from interrupt for i210 Message-ID: <20260206074449.CydBDckN@linutronix.de> References: <20260205-igb_irq_ts-v3-1-2efc7bc4b885@linutronix.de> <20260205100347.ssTBDAI_@linutronix.de> <6a0f4cbb-e8b3-4f0e-b7f1-7f9ca5cba97d@linux.dev> <20260205145104.iWinkXHv@linutronix.de> <66925f09-ef9f-4401-baec-7d4c82a68ce3@linux.dev> <20260205164341.pJvni8kA@linutronix.de> <76acd5cc-eb6f-4c56-a5e6-f6413736afbb@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2026-02-05 16:41:03 [-0500], Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > Requiring OPT_TSONLY unless CAP_NET_RAW would break legacy users. okay. Can we move the check to sock_set_timestamping()/ setsockopt() time? On the plus side we could throw an error instead silently dropping packets. This might be a late win given that you describe the users as legacy users. I'm not sure if the "permission" can change over time and so get revoked while an application is running. Sebastian