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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8628FE4E7912BF47A96AE7DD7BAC0AADDDC6675BF5@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> 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... > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists