netdev - RE: Receiving of priority tagged packets

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:	Sun, 23 May 2010 03:22:58 -0700
From:	"Vladislav Zolotarov" <vladz@...adcom.com>
To:	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Receiving of priority tagged packets


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 1:07 PM
> To: Vladislav Zolotarov
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Receiving of priority tagged packets
> 
> Le dimanche 23 mai 2010 à 02:36 -0700, Vladislav Zolotarov a écrit :
> > Hello,
> > We were playing with FCoE in our labs and saw the strange behavior of Linux
> networking stack in regard to priority-tagged frames (the ones that have a
> zero VID in a VLAN tag). We saw that until we explicitly added a zero vlan
> interface (vconfig add ethX 0) the stack refused to accept such packets both
> in HW VLAN acceleration mode (skb is indicated using
> vlan_hwaccel_receive_skb()) and in a regular mode (skb is indicated with
> netif_receive_skb()).
> >
> > However "IEEE Std 802.1Q, 2006 Edition DRAFT D0.1" in section 6.7 states
> the following:
> >
> > Each Bridge Port shall support the following parameters for use by these
> (EISS tagging and detagging) functions:
> > 	c) an Acceptable Frame Types parameter with at least one of the
> following values:
> > 		1) Admit Only VLAN-tagged frames;
> > 		2) Admit Only Untagged and Priority-tagged frames;
> > 		3) Admit All frames
> >
> > So I guess this means that priority tagged frames should be accepted
> together with the untagged frames on the default interface ethX.
> >
> > Could anyone explain, pls., what's the expected behavior of the Linux
> Networking Stack in regard to the priority-tagged frames and what's expected
> to be configured in order to start accepting them?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > vlad
> 
> So if eth0.0 is setup, incoming vlanid=0 frames are delivered to eth0.0,
> OK ? (This works in and out since commit 05423b241311c93)
> 
> Now, if eth0.0 is not setup, you believe these frames should be directed
> to eth0, as if they were not tagged ?
> 
> That seems a bit strange.

Well, as far as I understood this is what IEEE 802.1Q spec states...

> 
> 
>