lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to dev->promiscuity.
The 09/02/2019 19:51, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> External E-Mail
>
>
> Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:42:31PM CEST, allan.nielsen@microchip.com wrote:
> >Hi Jiri,
> >
> >Sorry for joining the discussion this late, but I have been without mail access
> >for the last few days.
> >
> >
> >The 08/30/2019 08:36, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:02:33AM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
> >> >From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> >> >Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:39:40 +0200
> >> >
> >> >> Because the "promisc mode" would gain another meaning. Now how the
> >> >> driver should guess which meaning the user ment when he setted it?
> >> >> filter or trap?
> >> >>
> >> >> That is very confusing. If the flag is the way to do this, let's
> >> >> introduce another flag, like IFF_TRAPPING indicating that user wants
> >> >> exactly this.
> >> >
> >> >I don't understand how the meaning of promiscuous mode for a
> >> >networking device has suddenly become ambiguous, when did this start
> >> >happening?
> >>
> >> The promiscuity is a way to setup the rx filter. So promics == rx filter
> >> off. For normal nics, where there is no hw fwd datapath,
> >> this coincidentally means all received packets go to cpu.
> >> But if there is hw fwd datapath, rx filter is still off, all rxed packets
> >> are processed. But that does not mean they should be trapped to cpu.
> >>
> >> Simple example:
> >> I need to see slowpath packets, for example arps/stp/bgp/... that
> >> are going to cpu, I do:
> >> tcpdump -i swp1
> >
> >How is this different from "tcpdump -p -i swp1"
> >
> >> I don't want to get all the traffic running over hw running this cmd.
> >> This is a valid usecase.
> >>
> >> To cope with hw fwd datapath devices, I believe that tcpdump has to have
> >> notion of that. Something like:
> >>
> >> tcpdump -i swp1 --hw-trapping-mode
> >>
> >> The logic can be inverse:
> >> tcpdump -i swp1
> >> tcpdump -i swp1 --no-hw-trapping-mode
> >>
> >> However, that would provide inconsistent behaviour between existing and
> >> patched tcpdump/kernel.
> >>
> >> All I'm trying to say, there are 2 flags
> >> needed (if we don't use tc trap).
> >
> >I have been reading through this thread several times and I still do not get it.
> >
> >As far as I understand you are arguing that we need 3 modes:
> >
> >- tcpdump -i swp1
>
> Depends on default. Promisc is on.
>
>
> >- tcpdump -p -i swp1
>
> All traffic that is trapped to the cpu by default, not promisc means
> only mac of the interface (if bridge for example haven't set promisc
> already) and special macs. So host traffic (ip of host), bgp, arp, nsnd,
> etc.

In the case where the interface is enslaved to a bridge, it is put into promisc
mode, which means that "tcpdump -i swp1" and "tcpdump -p -i swp1" give the same
result, right?

Is this desirable?

> >- tcpdump -i swp1 --hw-trapping-mode
>
> Promisc is on, all traffic received on the port and pushed to cpu. User
> has to be careful because in case of mlxsw this can lead to couple
> hundred gigabit traffic going over limited pci bandwidth (gigabits).
>
>
> >
> >Would you mind provide an example of the traffic you want to see in the 3 cases
> >(or the traffic which you do not want to see).
> >
> >/Allan
> >
>

--
/Allan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-02 20:06    [W:0.139 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site