Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:02:28 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Alan Somers <asomers@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r352231 - head/lib/libc/sys Message-ID: <201909122002.x8CK2Sxh005042@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: <63cf915c92b92b07e19337849269ec6bd0dc0d1b.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201909111948.x8BJmWZn092483@repo.freebsd.org> <63cf915c92b92b07e19337849269ec6bd0dc0d1b.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <63cf915c92b92b07e19337849269ec6bd0dc0d1b.camel@freebsd.org>, Ian Le pore writes: > On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 19:48 +0000, Alan Somers wrote: > > Author: asomers > > Date: Wed Sep 11 19:48:32 2019 > > New Revision: 352231 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/352231 > > > > Log: > > getsockopt.2: clarify that SO_TIMESTAMP is not 100% reliable > > > > When SO_TIMESTAMP is set, the kernel will attempt to attach a timestamp a > s > > ancillary data to each IP datagram that is received on the socket. Howeve > r, > > it may fail, for example due to insufficient memory. In that case the > > packet will still be received but not timestamp will be attached. > > > > Reviewed by: kib > > MFC after: 3 days > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21607 > > > > Modified: > > head/lib/libc/sys/getsockopt.2 > > > > Modified: head/lib/libc/sys/getsockopt.2 > > =========================================================================== > === > > --- head/lib/libc/sys/getsockopt.2 Wed Sep 11 19:29:40 2019 (r35223 > 0) > > +++ head/lib/libc/sys/getsockopt.2 Wed Sep 11 19:48:32 2019 (r35223 > 1) > > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ > > .\" @(#)getsockopt.2 8.4 (Berkeley) 5/2/95 > > .\" $FreeBSD$ > > .\" > > -.Dd February 10, 2019 > > +.Dd September 11, 2019 > > .Dt GETSOCKOPT 2 > > .Os > > .Sh NAME > > @@ -431,7 +431,8 @@ option is enabled on a > > .Dv SOCK_DGRAM > > socket, the > > .Xr recvmsg 2 > > -call will return a timestamp corresponding to when the datagram was receiv > ed. > > +call may return a timestamp corresponding to when the datagram was receive > d. > > +However, it may not, for example due to a resource shortage. > > The > > .Va msg_control > > field in the > > > > So I guess this actually happened to someone... is it a common thing > for the timestamp to fail? I ask because ntpd relies on SO_TIMESTAMP > and if this situation really happens and can persist for a long time, > ntpd would effectively stop working. This reminds me, something that's been on my plate for a couple of weeks. Our NTP upline pinged me a few weeks ago regarding IEEE 1588 driver support for NICs with hardware support. Linux already has it. I was told that someone hrtr has attempted this but that the results weren't optimal. That's all I know. Should I open discussion on arch@? -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201909122002.x8CK2Sxh005042>