Message-ID: <20190902180519.ytbs6x2dx5z23hys@lx-anielsen.microsemi.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:05:20 +0200
From:   "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <idosch@...sch.org>,
        <andrew@...n.ch>, <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        <ivecera@...hat.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to dev->promiscuity.

The 09/02/2019 19:51, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> External E-Mail
> 
> 
> Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:42:31PM CEST, allan.nielsen@...rochip.com wrote:
> >Hi Jiri,
> >
> >Sorry for joining the discussion this late, but I have been without mail access
> >for the last few days.
> >
> >
> >The 08/30/2019 08:36, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:02:33AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
> >> >From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> >> >Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:39:40 +0200
> >> >
> >> >> Because the "promisc mode" would gain another meaning. Now how the
> >> >> driver should guess which meaning the user ment when he setted it?
> >> >> filter or trap?
> >> >> 
> >> >> That is very confusing. If the flag is the way to do this, let's
> >> >> introduce another flag, like IFF_TRAPPING indicating that user wants
> >> >> exactly this.
> >> >
> >> >I don't understand how the meaning of promiscuous mode for a
> >> >networking device has suddenly become ambiguous, when did this start
> >> >happening?
> >> 
> >> The promiscuity is a way to setup the rx filter. So promics == rx filter
> >> off. For normal nics, where there is no hw fwd datapath,
> >> this coincidentally means all received packets go to cpu.
> >> But if there is hw fwd datapath, rx filter is still off, all rxed packets
> >> are processed. But that does not mean they should be trapped to cpu.
> >> 
> >> Simple example:
> >> I need to see slowpath packets, for example arps/stp/bgp/... that
> >> are going to cpu, I do:
> >> tcpdump -i swp1
> >
> >How is this different from "tcpdump -p -i swp1"
> >
> >> I don't want to get all the traffic running over hw running this cmd.
> >> This is a valid usecase.
> >> 
> >> To cope with hw fwd datapath devices, I believe that tcpdump has to have
> >> notion of that. Something like:
> >> 
> >> tcpdump -i swp1 --hw-trapping-mode
> >> 
> >> The logic can be inverse:
> >> tcpdump -i swp1
> >> tcpdump -i swp1 --no-hw-trapping-mode
> >> 
> >> However, that would provide inconsistent behaviour between existing and
> >> patched tcpdump/kernel.
> >> 
> >> All I'm trying to say, there are 2 flags
> >> needed (if we don't use tc trap).
> >
> >I have been reading through this thread several times and I still do not get it.
> >
> >As far as I understand you are arguing that we need 3 modes:
> >
> >- tcpdump -i swp1
> 
> Depends on default. Promisc is on.
> 
> 
> >- tcpdump -p -i swp1
> 
> All traffic that is trapped to the cpu by default, not promisc means
> only mac of the interface (if bridge for example haven't set promisc
> already) and special macs. So host traffic (ip of host), bgp, arp, nsnd,
> etc.

In the case where the interface is enslaved to a bridge, it is put into promisc
mode, which means that "tcpdump -i swp1" and "tcpdump -p -i swp1" give the same
result, right?

Is this desirable?

> >- tcpdump -i swp1 --hw-trapping-mode
> 
> Promisc is on, all traffic received on the port and pushed to cpu. User
> has to be careful because in case of mlxsw this can lead to couple
> hundred gigabit traffic going over limited pci bandwidth (gigabits).
> 
> 
> >
> >Would you mind provide an example of the traffic you want to see in the 3 cases
> >(or the traffic which you do not want to see).
> >
> >/Allan
> >
> 

-- 
/Allan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists