[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4738950D.7070902@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:01:49 -0800
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC: e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
'Dave Johnson' <djohnson+linux-kernel@...starentnetworks.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joonwoo Park <joonwpark81@...il.com>,
'David Miller' <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH 2/2] [e1000 VLAN] Disable vlan hw accel
when promiscuous mode
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Joonwoo Park wrote:
>>> IMHO even though netdevice is in the promiscuous mode, we should receive all of ingress packets.
>>> This disable the vlan filtering feature when a vlan hw accel configured e1000 device goes into promiscuous mode.
>>> This make packets visible to sniffers though it's not vlan id of itself.
>>> Any check, comments will be appreciated.
>> Actually I think this patch removes a choice from the user.
>>
>> Before this patch, the user can sniff all traffic by disabling vlans, or a
>> specific vlan only by leaving vlans on when going into promisc mode.
>>
>> After this patch, the user has no choice but to sniff all vlans at all times.
>>
>> I don't think that that is such a good improvement.
>
>
> Do you really consider that a realistic choice? Who is going to
> remove interfaces that are in use just to see traffic for other
> VLANs? Sniffing specific VLANs can always be done on the VLAN
> device itself.
right, I had not thought of that.
> IMO its more a question of what we want promiscous mode to mean,
> and I tend to agree with Joonwoo that it should receive all packets.
OK, Joonwoo: can you submit a patch against e1000e as well?
Auke
-
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