Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 22:36:13 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
        alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, allan.nielsen@microchip.com,
        ivecera@redhat.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to dev->promiscuity.
Message-ID: <20190829193613.GA23259@splinter>
References: <1567070549-29255-1-git-send-email-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
 <1567070549-29255-2-git-send-email-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
 <20190829095100.GH2312@nanopsycho>
 <20190829132611.GC6998@lunn.ch>
 <20190829134901.GJ2312@nanopsycho>
 <20190829143732.GB17864@lunn.ch>
 <20190829175759.GA19471@splinter>
 <20190829182957.GA17530@lunn.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190829182957.GA17530@lunn.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:29:57PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > What happens when you run tcpdump on a routed interface without putting
> > it in promiscuous mode ('-p')? If it is a pure software switch, then you
> > see all unicast packets addressed to your interface's MAC address. What
> > happens when the same is done on a hardware switch? With the proposed
> > solution you will not get the same result.
> > 
> > On a software switch, when you run tcpdump without '-p', do you incur
> > major packet loss? No. Will this happen when you punt several Tbps to
> > your CPU on the hardware switch? Yes.
> 
> Hi Ido
> 
> Please think about the general case, not your hardware. A DSA switch
> generally has 1G ports. And the connection to the host is generally
> 1G, maybe 2.5G. So if i put one interface into promisc mode, i will
> probably receive the majority of the traffic on that port, so long as
> there is not too much traffic from other ports towards the CPU.
> 
> I also don't expect any major packet loss in the switch. It is still
> hardware switching, but also sending a copy to the CPU. That copy will
> have the offload_fwd_mark bit set, so the bridge will discard the
> frame. The switch egress queue towards the CPU might overflow, but
> that means tcpdump does not get to see all the frames, and some
> traffic which is actually heading to the CPU is lost. But that can
> happen anyway.

The potential packet loss was only one example why using promiscuous
mode as an indication to punt all traffic to the CPU is wrong. I also
mentioned that you will not capture any traffic (besides
control/exception) when '-p' is specified.

> We should also think about the different classes of users. Somebody
> using a TOR switch with a NOS is very different to a user of a SOHO
> switch in their WiFi access point. The first probably knows tc very
> well, the second has probably never heard of it, and just wants
> tcpdump to work like on their desktop.

I fully agree that we should make it easy for users to capture offloaded
traffic, which is why I suggested patching libpcap. Add a flag to
capable netdevs that tells libpcap that in order to capture all the
traffic from this interface it needs to add a tc filter with a trap
action. That way zero familiarity with tc is required from users.

I really believe that instead of interpreting IFF_PROMISC in exotic ways
and pushing all this logic into the kernel, we should instead teach user
space utilities to capture offloaded traffic.