linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to dev->promiscuity.

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:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     idosch@...sch.org
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, jiri@...nulli.us, horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        allan.nielsen@...rochip.com, ivecera@...hat.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to
 dev->promiscuity.

From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 20:57:59 +0300

> On a software switch, when you run tcpdump without '-p', do you incur
> major packet loss? No. Will this happen when you punt several Tbps to
> your CPU on the hardware switch? Yes.
> 
> Extending the definition of promiscuous mode to mean punt all traffic to
> the CPU is wrong, IMO. You will not be able to capture all the packets

This is so illogical, it is mind boggling.

How different is this to using tcpdump/wireshark on a 100GB or 1TB
network interface?

There is no difference.

Please stop portraying switches as special in this regard, they are
not.