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 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20190829.150851.713654232867665043.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     idosch@idosch.org
Cc:     andrew@lunn.ch, jiri@resnulli.us, horatiu.vultur@microchip.com,
        alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        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.
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190829175759.GA19471@splinter>
References: <20190829134901.GJ2312@nanopsycho>
        <20190829143732.GB17864@lunn.ch>
        <20190829175759.GA19471@splinter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 20:57:59 +0300

> 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.
> 
> Extending the definition of promiscuous mode to mean punt all traffic to
> the CPU is wrong, IMO. You will not be able to capture all the packets

This is so illogical, it is mind boggling.

How different is this to using tcpdump/wireshark on a 100GB or 1TB
network interface?

There is no difference.

Please stop portraying switches as special in this regard, they are
not.