netdev - Re: IFF_PROMISC again

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <465385F2.7080309@candelatech.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2007 17:08:18 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Martín Ferrari <martin.ferrari@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IFF_PROMISC again

Martín Ferrari wrote:
> Hi, for the nth time I send this email, hoping that majordomo won't eat
> it again.
> 
> 
> I know this has been extensibly discussed circa 2001, but I found that
> there's still problems: in debian (at least) neither ifconfig nor ip
> can tell that the interface is in promiscuous mode.
> 
> I know about the deprecation of IFF_PROMISC, but I couldn't find out
> which is the current way of knowing the real state of the interface. I
> want to fix ifconfig, so this is not an issue of
> PACKET_(ADD|REMOVE)_MEMBERSHIP, I need to query the real device state.

I have the same problem.  I think you can tell by looking at bit 0x100
in /sys/class/net/[ethX]/flags

Not exactly fun to use, but it seems to work.

Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag
in dev_get_flags() ?

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