netdev - Re: Marvell 88E609x switch?

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]

Message-ID: <20090227151441.GE17040@xi.wantstofly.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:14:41 +0100
From:	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
To:	Gary Thomas <gary@...assoc.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Marvell 88E609x switch?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08:22AM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:

> >> OK, I did that:
> >>   Sending discover...
> >>   PHY: 0:01 - Link is Up - 1000/Full
> >>
> >> I now see the fixed PHY (pretender, configured at build time)
> >> and the 8 LAN sockets:
> >>   root@..._target:~ ls /sys/bus/mdio_bus/devices/
> >>   0:01         24520:01:01  24520:01:03  24520:01:05  24520:01:07
> >>   24520:01:00  24520:01:02  24520:01:04  24520:01:06
> >>
> >> But nothing seems to get through the switch.  Of course, I
> >> know that the switch and connections are working because that's
> >> the path I downloaded/booted the kernel from.
> >>
> >> Getting closer :-) Any ideas?
> > 
> > :-)  Do you see messages in your syslog about the lan interfaces
> > being up, full duplex, etc?  Something a la (from one of my boards):
> > 
> > 	lan1: link up, 1000 Mb/s, full duplex, flow control disabled
> > 	lan2: link up, 1000 Mb/s, full duplex, flow control disabled
> 
> This does seem to work:
>   root@..._target:~ ifconfig lan1.1 up
>   root@..._target:~ lan1.1: link up, 100 Mb/s, full duplex, flow control disabled
> 
> When I try it on other ports:
>   root@..._target:~ ifconfig lan1.2 up
>   root@..._target:~ ifconfig lan1.3 up
> Those ports aren't plugged (and I'm 6000 miles from them, literally,
> so I can't change that)

OK, that makes sense then.


> > If yes, can you up the interfaces, and send some packets over them
> > and see if the TX counters on eth0 increase?  If yes, can you dump
> > the packets sent out over eth0 using tcpdump?
> 
> I tried to ping out and into the box.  Nothing seems to go anywhere:
> 
> root@..._target:~ ifconfig
> eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1D:11:81:00:00
>           inet addr:192.168.12.189  Bcast:192.168.12.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:17 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>           RX bytes:0 (0.0 B)  TX bytes:1810 (1.7 KiB)
>           Base address:0x6000
> 
> lan1.1    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1D:11:81:00:00
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>           RX bytes:0 (0.0 B)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)
> 
> Running tcpdump on the external network (192.168.12.x), I saw
> no activity.
>
> Do I need to do anything more than "ifconfig lan1.1 up"?

IP addresses should be attached to the lanX.X interfaces, not to eth0
-- eth0 will only be carrying specially tagged (DSA/EDSA) packets.
So you should move the IP address to lan1.1.

Can you trying pinging via lan1.1 and then seeing if there are
packets transmitted out over eth0, and dump those packets with tcpdump?


> Maybe the "." is confusing things?  I was just trying to
> look ahead when I have 3 switches running.

That shouldn't be causing trouble as far as I can see.
--
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