Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 2/2] af_packet: Add port specific handling for HSR

Willem de Bruijn
2026-03-10T21:35:35Z

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-03-09 21:38:33 [-0400], Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > The same point about adding per protocol state to sk_buff applies
> > to a slightly lesser extent to PF_PACKET.
> >
> > Adding this much HSR + PTP specific code there is a non-starter.
>
> It looked like a little and is hidden behind a static branch so it is
> just a nop as long as there is no one using the socket bind. And without
> CONFIG_HSR there is not even that.
>
> > I should have said this in v1. This likely makes my skb_extensions
> > suggestion a non-starter sorry.
>
> I need something to share between two layers I think so that
> skb_extensions wasn't that bad.
>
> > We need to find a different way to
> >
> > Rx: get the port info from the slave device to userspace.
> > Tx: send out the intended slave device.
> >
> > Let's separate the two challenges (and patches).
> >
> > On Rx, could your process just attach the PF_PACKET socket to the
> > slave devices and filter on HSR PTP packets? Then separately drop
> > these packets in hsr_handle_frame (as already done?) or TC ingress, so
> > that they only arrive in userspace?
>
> I could listen directly on eth0/ eth1 as a PF_PACKET. That would give me
> all I need including a timestamp, yes. I wouldn't just be able to use it
> for TX but lets go on.

Great

> > On Tx, can you share a bit more why there are two cases, one where the
> > master has to add the header, but also one where it does not (so
> > userspace has presumably inserted it).
>
> PTP + HSR. Lets assume the following setup:
>
> ╭────────╮ ╭──────╮ ╭──────╮ ╭────────╮
> ╔═══│ Node X │═══│Port A├┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┤Port A│══│ Node Y │════╗
> ║ ╰────────╯ ╰──────╯ ╰──────╯ ╰────────╯ ║
> ║ ║
> ║ ║
> ╭──────╮ ╭──────╮ ╭────────╮ ╭──────╮ ╭──────╮
> │Port B├┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┤Port B│══│ Node Z │══│Port A├┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┤Port B│
> ╰──────╯ ╰──────╯ ╰────────╯ ╰──────╯ ╰──────╯
>
> Node X has direct connection to Y and Z, each node has two ports. You
> could add more nodes but it always remains a ring.
> Lets say node X sends a packet (say TCP/IP) with the destination MAC of
> node Z assuming a "normal port 443" request. This packet gets a HSR
> header prepended and is sent on X-A and X-B. This happens transparently
> as hsr0 is the device with an IP address assigned and port A and B are
> just two device which are up with no IP address assigned. These are the
> physical devices forwarding the traffic.
>
> Y-A receives it, is not the target, forwards it over Y-B.
> Z-B receives it, it is the target, sends to its master port which
> removes the HSR header and the packet arrives in the IP stack. After the
> master port, it forwards it also on Z-A.
> Z-A receives it (the copy from Y-B) identifies it as a duplicate based
> on the HSR-sequence number (does not inject into the master port) and
> forwards it on Z-B.
> At the end Node X receives two copies of the packet it sent and removes
> them from the ring (node X was the sender identified by the SRC MAC and
> does not forward it).
>
> This is how HSR works in general. Now lets add PTP to this as specified.
> The target MAC is always a multicast MAC and the ether type is PTP
> 0x88f7.
>
> Use case 1: A PDELAY_REQ packet. This packet travels only between two
> neighbours. That means X-A sends it to Y-A and Y must not forward it
> over Y-B but needs to answer (send a PDELAY_RESP). These packets are
> sent as PTP frames and the HSR stack needs to prepend a HSR header with
> a valid sequence number. X-B gets its own request. Userland needs to
> track time/ state information on per port basis.
>
> Use case 2: A SYNC packet. This packet is sent from X-A to Y-A. Again a
> HSR header needs to be prepended by the stack on X. Y-A receives that
> packet. It injects it into the master port where user land can consume
> it. This is the same as the previous case.
> Here comes the different part: This packet needs to be forwarded by Y
> over Y-B. As in the previous case the HSR stack does not forward it on
> its own but this part is done by userland. So userland sends a packet,
> only on Y-B and this packet already contains the HSR header from X and
> it needs to be preserved.
> The forwarded SYNC packet got its timing information updated based on
> the delay within the stack (so it is not identical as received).

Thanks for the detailed explanation of the challenge!

> That is why the HSR stack must not forwarded the packets on the other
> port as it would normally do (breaks PTP time information), why user
> land needs to know on which port the packet was received and why it
> needs to send a packet only on one port with or without the HSR header.
>
> > The second case is simpler: can just write directly the whole packet
> > to the intended slave device.
>
> Yes. This has been suggested and was indeed used in my v1 of linuxptp

Great

> but the problem was sending with system's HSR header.
>
> > For the first case, could skb->mark be used as port selector when
> > writing from a packet socket to the master device? That already works
> > with sock_cmsg_send.
>
> We would have to specify that SO_MARK 1 and 2 denotes the port on which
> a packet is sent. This kind of burns the usage for everything else on
> HSR so it feels misused.

It is more or less what mark is for. An alternative similar field
supported by sock_cmsg_send is skb->priority.

An alternative may be to share the information in-band. Already
insert the HSR header also wen writing to the master device. If the
master device can detect this packet-with-pre-existing header.

This is not the first case where ndo_start_xmit may already expect a
header prefixed that it normally inserts. I forgot the exact case (can
look it up), maybe a weird edge case in GRE?

It does not even have to be a valid HSR header: just an agreement
between the process writing the raw packet and hsr_dev_xmit.

There probably are still more ways we can approach this challenge.
But these are three that do not require kernel changes outside the
HSR protocol code.

> And then we would need an additional bit to
> specify whether the HSR header is there or not. Unless I open additional
> socket on the ethernet device just for sending and dropping everything
> incoming.

Right, packets that already have a header prefixed are written
directly to the intended slave.

> And we would have to filter/ distinguish the RX port based on it.
> Userland has a cBPF filter to filter everything out and receive only PTP
> frames. If the PTP packet is forwarded to both sockets (A and B) then
> userland would have to throw one copy away and go to sleep again. This
> sort of breaks currently linuxptp logic. It would probably require
> either eBPF to filter also so_mark or deal with "no packet despite the
> wakeup" but so far I tried minimal impact on both sides (kernel and
> user).

I don't fully follow this part. It discusses Rx again?