netdev - Re: Multiqueue and virtualization WAS(Re: [PATCH 3/3] NET: [SCHED] Qdisc changes and sch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:33:06 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC:	hadi@...erus.ca, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jeff@...zik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com
Subject: Re: Multiqueue and virtualization WAS(Re: [PATCH 3/3] NET: [SCHED]
 Qdisc changes and sch_rr added for multiqueue

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Right, but the current bridging code always uses promiscous mode
> and its nice to avoid that if possible. Looking at the code, it
> should be easy to avoid though by disabling learning (and thus
> promisous mode) and adding unicast filters for all static fdb entries.
>   
I am curious about why people are so hot to do away with promisc mode.  
It seems to me
that in a modern switched environment, there should only very rarely be 
unicast packets received
on an interface that does not want to receive them.

Could someone give a quick example of when I am wrong and promisc mode 
would allow
a NIC to receive a significant number of packets not really destined for it?

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> 
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html