[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210226152836.31a0b1bb@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:28:36 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Markus Blöchl <Markus.Bloechl@...tronik.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 5/6] net: enetc: don't disable VLAN filtering in
IFF_PROMISC mode
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:18:34 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Quoting from the blamed commit:
>
> In promiscuous mode, it is more intuitive that all traffic is received,
> including VLAN tagged traffic. It appears that it is necessary to set
> the flag in PSIPVMR for that to be the case, so VLAN promiscuous mode is
> also temporarily enabled. On exit from promiscuous mode, the setting
> made by ethtool is restored.
>
> Intuitive or not, there isn't any definition issued by a standards body
> which says that promiscuity has anything to do with VLAN filtering - it
> only has to do with accepting packets regardless of destination MAC address.
>
> In fact people are already trying to use this misunderstanding/bug of
> the enetc driver as a justification to transform promiscuity into
> something it never was about: accepting every packet (maybe that would
> be the "rx-all" netdev feature?):
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201110153958.ci5ekor3o2ekg3ky@ipetronik.com/
>
> So we should avoid that and delete the bogus logic in enetc.
I don't understand what you're fixing tho.
Are we trying to establish vlan-filter-on as the expected behavior?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists