netdev - Re: bnx2 vlan issue

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: <loom.20110617T075702-107@post.gmane.org>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:10:24 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Dominique Martinet <rnfhrznznaq.tf@...lue.notk.org>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bnx2 vlan issue

Hi,

Jesse Gross <jesse <at> nicira.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Seblu <seblu <at> seblu.net> wrote:
> > Maybe i was not enough clear. It seems to me that new behaviour, with
> > vlan on top of bridge rather than above interface in bridge is not
> > functional.
> > In other words, i cannot use vlan and bridge together in 2.6.38 (with 
> > e1000e).
> 
> Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying before.  Can you try and
> see where the packets are getting lost or improperly handled by
> running tcpdump on the various interfaces?  For example, check that
> packets are coming in with tags on the physical interfaces, have tags
> on the bridge interface, no tag on the vlan interface, etc.

I think I ran into the same problem, and my workaround for this was to add
a vlan do the bridge and then add the vlan'ed bridge to another bridge, i.e.
(since I can't draw, commands will be better :P)

brctl addbr br0
brctl addif br0 eth0
ip link add link br0 name br0.42 type vlan id 42
ip link set br0.42 up

brctl addbr br_42
brctl addif br_42 br0.42

and then I could put VMs in br_42 which got network "as expected"
before, I used to have br_42 with eth0.42 in it, so it is just one more
step..
What bothers me is that I also want to put VMs in br0, and it does work,
but this bridge also sees all the tagged data - isn't there a way to just
"pick" the untagged network?
My other question is that I'm not certain if that's the expected way to
use the new behaviour, if not I wouldn't mind light shining from above :)

This is enough for me, though I can't say I like the change I can't argue
that having everything behave the same way is better, but I'm still
curious...

Regards,
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus

--
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