On 01/18/2018 09:11 AM, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 03:06:12PM -0800, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote: >> @@ -2130,6 +2137,15 @@ int __sock_cmsg_send(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr >> *msg, struct cmsghdr *cmsg, >> sockc->tsflags &= ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK; >> sockc->tsflags |= tsflags; >> break; >> + case SO_TXTIME: >> + if (!ns_capable(sock_net(sk)->user_ns, CAP_NET_ADMIN)) >> + return -EPERM; >> + if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_TXTIME)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + if (cmsg->cmsg_len != CMSG_LEN(sizeof(ktime_t))) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + sockc->transmit_time = *(ktime_t *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg); > > As pointed out in the first series' review: > > No guarantee the CMSG is properly aligned on arches that might trap > on unaligned access.
Yes, it will be fixed on the next version. We should probably fix the other cases on this function as well then. Thanks, Jesus > > Thanks, > Richard >
