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

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>]

On 2026-02-09 10:43:55 [+0000], Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 09/02/2026 09:06, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2026-02-08 11:25:40 [-0500], Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > > > But it's more like a question to maintainers whether it is acceptable
> > > > > > way of "fixing" drivers or it's no-go solution
> > > > > 
> > > > > Requiring OPT_TSONLY unless CAP_NET_RAW would break legacy users.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, they are kinda broken already. Without OPT_TSONLY and CAP_NET_RAW all TX
> > > > timestamps are silently dropped.
> > > 
> > > Are you referring to sysctl_tstamp_allow_data?
> > > 
> > > That is enabled by default.
> > 
> > Yes. If so, then we don't need the check below which requires
> > sk_callback_lock.
> > 
> > Are SIOCSHWTSTAMP the legacy users or the ones which do not set
> > OPT_TSONLY?
> > 
> > I would suggest to move the CAP_NET_RAW check to the point where
> > timestamping is getting enabled.
> > Also if ndo_hwtstamp_set is the preferred method of getting things done,
> > I could check how many old ones are can be easily converted…
> 
> Looks like you are mixing things. SIOCSHWTSTAMP/ndo_hwtstamp_set are HW
> configuration calls while OPT_TSONLY is socket option, which is setup via
> setsockopt, you can find points searching for
> SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_TSONLY in the sources, basically
> sock_set_timestamping() is the function to check

Yeah, but what is the legacy user here? If you enable HW-timestamps but
never set OPT_TSONLY and the sysctl is also 0 then you reply on the
CAP_NET_RAW later on. Right?

I just try to justify the CAP_NET_RAW check and if it is required to
move it earlier (where HW timestamps are enabled). And if the sysctl
check is enough then maybe it is not needed.
 
> > > > To receive these timestamps users have to get
> > > > CAP_NET_RAW permission, and it will work with the updated logic as well...

Sebastian