From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f196.google.com (mail-yw1-f196.google.com [209.85.128.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E17A2F7F06 for ; Mon, 18 May 2026 15:34:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.196 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779118478; cv=none; b=hlDoI7QwbcSvDSh3GIB4NRhxqQZ6GbyIEbt8cr8d7kCPZKMTvhOalB3axh6gkY7ce51Z4AyDC07tHZj5nI5WLnygGziCZIO4LJ9mqZatXbDG70ezWXjSQTW4r0KflB7mIeUoseXNqQEJw5DEFSZgLx8UeGZfY3aEv6B6vt6NEdY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779118478; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tbBqVl2Rwq+ug/3pxcSsXUY2Omq/LcBl+AADnhVJGJU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EGMzSdXaOczI2w+JSPhkIgJUnpXqj0v7Q2jJxeWy+ldtL7xXa4uovMFIU1KZa2lvGhCssYkWWC9pGHrBctqswh8a5dcBRYKAWKhFZLTnckB9hL9K0PL82jGjbWmnFHTNp3QIKpwPa6LJftaCYxT+TAr4o2KYfbpXzAPv4hOIRFI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=tA1IA9X4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.196 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="tA1IA9X4" Received: by mail-yw1-f196.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7c307937816so17061147b3.0 for ; Mon, 18 May 2026 08:34:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1779118476; x=1779723276; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yQbyMvz6XLiuRTxyqtiLM3EHuxR7kEEq3JV9iEUFgR8=; b=tA1IA9X4xgPK8efiksGsoB8Im0KF2PQUOu2+0Oe+VxGUj4fbZ0cxjWBgPRwVgT5dIm dWQj+f3pq/uQxeuFhtbTPAGXgNyuxFfdo3yo6pphc/0kl0DQwBjbMJRIEPLC8/ukX3A5 sWet9IW6xWB1MFtEQpFsF6kxrSTYbyBcOaorUaLa8dlfvuTYZCccmCt4u+do+QjWgd7t j3U0V3aRsTfmrqpCz3ZNIowJRLQBf2vLzGNrDUSASSRu19hNkl8BRpS4+2wzQJBPnPei 5e4KqjEx5GFfyrReQuo1s9vWiRiff95nbndkC14jDGzZp6nSO4dMyeJjnoX+b2qFQKLX oHkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1779118476; x=1779723276; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yQbyMvz6XLiuRTxyqtiLM3EHuxR7kEEq3JV9iEUFgR8=; b=ZPG3ISk6oJDvgeLYtKzhIaDC2eXuWhAFKmasKsHoUR+sr8ZauL8rz8/v2dxZY7lM3h Oq2k+BqbgHnRKxIa0F9VGSAk1zsF5RME0SU2v+pzFVWRPivX9BJU/Hm9lobb3XW+4/+w NOyerijckvI2+ChNXSsqom+Xu6x8Ni0NUn+S0cwG/MqwOl62Fqn5IJQsyK2yX7Y+/k4N 9KwzoK3XwTj0v08MeDKn2cW3Zl+npgyJXFac3azVTwLDCn1w9hrH4rQtOgapQuIYToYK n0xa9ojKtm1LeszcXF1VdNDu0lVmPsWkGIt7GUys3pE1VxeuYO9GK8dhdbqb1FtjNV3B vp7Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/iuz3IKfKf85KFih8AFWCf2BE46B+l04PVGWQPdlOyWGf27Csv7qA0D85/jyevQUzXi6Oi0l0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzP7xTu+InkUpW6VdihIjGIoZLUEYCav5PDcglF6kUX0EcFPT/I OzNTuVI5yLsoJYl05x01Z9/I+TZlFoN/Xdu7wnARJjfnQlkOdyD71Z00 X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OEd4J4+xhpTpGnDcOUk85Zmf+Rkez0fP+9tJyEStRQkRA9eLzzwWoUdaC0H9X5 wKEY3EtNKYHiK9VqA7YsvuAB11kMC/wDCe4CHlweJXyeilJZVtXgiOwpd9a5AXn+M7m8YeQ7rIL qJdnYfUJVMM6ZC/kDqoRZJwQaMoKakGNUOk1B7+jJDhTUnhpiT6pLZmmDyifwlC0K7BsocEaW09 NKUtrmMlLAzqWkN+DMr3yApbjD9p4lUFkx9KzeO4dYkU/Ss5pN42M8eP7HISLjb3XDy8cjcIAv5 CkDU24a9bYEmW4h428TPWgb3EZfvz9AHJNrSifVnYhxEPlBZdoFXhbWU/uD8U0oqbpOJr4mKoMS 7ko7EdA0CsDecer9/UM4fE2iW0EMhnY2HuLR6sfJtgoKRtsriUkkOme+uxYzeoor80AdhviBe3X oqfyHJLlSVCdXm7ukkm6uSl7P2uHs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:c1a:b0:7b8:bc4e:a54 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7c95c7edf69mr180168827b3.29.1779118475483; Mon, 18 May 2026 08:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a03:2880:2ff:5f::]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 00721157ae682-7cc9bc0eff6sm22692987b3.23.2026.05.18.08.34.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 18 May 2026 08:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 08:34:34 -0700 From: Stanislav Fomichev To: Jason Xing Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, willemb@google.com, kuniyu@google.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, memxor@gmail.com, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, sdf@fomichev.me, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Jason Xing Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bpf: enable bpf timestamping rx in TCP layer Message-ID: References: <20260518082344.96647-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <20260518082344.96647-6-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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260518082344.96647-6-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> On 05/18, Jason Xing wrote: > From: Jason Xing > > Add two if statements to accurately isolate bpf timestamping and so > timestamping. They can work respectively. > > As to so_timestamping, only add a loose condition via report flags > to avoid duplicate strict checks that is done in tcp_recv_timestamp() > and performance impact. If the loose condition is hit, > tcp_recv_timestamp() is able to handle the exact case and doesn't > hamper the existing timestamping feature. > > Make it work in TCP protocol. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing > --- > net/ipv4/tcp.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c > index 21ece4c71612..64c69bb3578a 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c > @@ -2949,8 +2949,18 @@ int tcp_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, int flags) > release_sock(sk); > > if ((cmsg_flags | msg->msg_get_inq) && ret >= 0) { > - if (cmsg_flags & TCP_CMSG_TS) > - tcp_recv_timestamp(msg, sk, &tss); > + if (cmsg_flags & TCP_CMSG_TS) { > + u32 tsflags = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags); > + > + if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_SOCK_OPS) && > + SK_BPF_CB_FLAG_TEST(sk, SK_BPF_CB_RX_TIMESTAMPING)) > + bpf_skops_rx_timestamping(sk, &tss, > + BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_RCV_CB); What about tcp_zc_finalize_rx_tstamp? Do you not want the rx tstamp for tcp rx zc?