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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:23:55 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net> Cc: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: e100 + VLANs? Le lundi 10 octobre 2011 à 17:13 +0200, David Lamparter a écrit : > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 05:05:52PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > When pinging this NIC from another machine over VLAN5, I see > > > ARP packets coming to it, gets recognized and replies going > > > back, all on vlan 5. But on the other side, replies comes > > > WITHOUT a VLAN tag! > > > > > > From this NIC's point of view, capturing on whole ethX: > > > > > > 00:1f:c6:ef:e5:1b > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 60: vlan 5, p 0, ethertype ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 10.48.11.2 tell 10.48.11.1, length 42 > > > 00:90:27:30:6d:1c > 00:1f:c6:ef:e5:1b, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 5, p 0, ethertype ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Reply 10.48.11.2 is-at 00:90:27:30:6d:1c, length 28 > > > > > > From the partner point of view, also on whole ethX: > > > > > > 00:1f:c6:ef:e5:1b > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 5, p 0, ethertype ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 10.48.11.2 tell 10.48.11.1, length 28 > > > 00:90:27:30:6d:1c > 00:1f:c6:ef:e5:1b, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 60: Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Reply 10.48.11.2 is-at 00:90:27:30:6d:1c, length 46 > > > > > > So, the tag gets eaten somewhere along the way... ;) > > Hmm. Looks like broken VLAN TX offload, but the driver doesn't even > implement VLAN offload. Maybe it's broken in its non-implementation... > > Your "partner" is a known-good setup and can be assumed to be working > correctly? This is over a crossover cable, no evil switches involved? > > > > And I can't really recreate the situation which I had - I know > > > some packets were flowing, so at least ARP worked. Now it > > > does not work anymore. > > > > What the 'partner' setup looks like ? > > > > ip link > > ip addr > > ip ro > > 'local' setup too please :) But here, the remote cleary sends an answer without VLAN tag ;) Maybe its a tg3 (we had a buggy driver until very recent change), or tcpdump is not up2date... -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists