Vadim Fedorenko wrote: > On 05/02/2026 16:43, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2026-02-05 16:27:03 [+0000], Vadim Fedorenko wrote: > >>> So the only thing that bothers me is the read_lock_bh() in > >>> skb_may_tx_timestamp() which deadlocks if the socket is write-locked on > >>> the same CPU. > >> > >> Alright. Now you make me think whether we should enforce OPT_TSONLY > >> option on socket which doesn't have CAP_NET_RAW? Then we can get rid of > >> this > >> check, and in case sysctl was flipped off - drop TX timestamps as > >> it's done now? > > > > This would "fix" this problem for all users which do deliver the > > timestamp from their IRQ handler instead of napi. There are a few of > > those… > > This would be considered stable material, right? (despite the fact that > > we have it for quite some time and nobody complained so far). > > cc: Willem as he is the author of the check introduced back in 2015. > > 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.
