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;
Received-SPF: Pass (esa6.microchip.iphmx.com: domain of
  Allan.Nielsen@microchip.com designates 198.175.253.82 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=198.175.253.82; receiver=esa6.microchip.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Allan.Nielsen@microchip.com";
  x-sender="Allan.Nielsen@microchip.com";
  x-conformance=spf_only; x-record-type="v=spf1";
  x-record-text="v=spf1 mx a:ushub1.microchip.com
  a:smtpout.microchip.com a:mx1.microchip.iphmx.com
  a:mx2.microchip.iphmx.com include:servers.mcsv.net
  include:mktomail.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com ~all"
Received-SPF: None (esa6.microchip.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@email.microchip.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=198.175.253.82; receiver=esa6.microchip.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Allan.Nielsen@microchip.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@email.microchip.com";
  x-conformance=spf_only
IronPort-SDR: S5lhxx8rJV+pGIrPafvGmFF/lT/gkbBgZ0IMI/ngBHSDJuPd1/0nDNY4kwryGqC8WE8huE8sCU
 X8GyaBPZV9m/G55tUBxs85N6htn8tsTAXpJRiDQN6o8g03MlHItrA/T0mjOSZ8S41adH0v757p
 Cd0O5yC2JDI/47w1DyJKORXH4sRQSPPDbPmtL8b0tcnQDLv+OMfmbKnO75YJubYBKzDtU2uCrW
 OSL7QCj85aNn0UjBmRhnD6W/kJEUJM5A6KBSQLW/mkJIvGFlMLOb88Hor/YaQYBvhTg062o+LL
 iG0=
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 19:42:31 +0200
From:   "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
CC:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <idosch@idosch.org>,
        <andrew@lunn.ch>, <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
        <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@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: <20190902174229.uur7r7duq4dvbnqq@lx-anielsen.microsemi.net>
References: <20190829193613.GA23259@splinter>
 <20190829.151201.940681219080864052.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20190830053940.GL2312@nanopsycho>
 <20190829.230233.287975311556641534.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20190830063624.GN2312@nanopsycho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190830063624.GN2312@nanopsycho>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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@davemloft.net wrote:
> >From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.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
- tcpdump -p -i swp1
- tcpdump -i swp1 --hw-trapping-mode

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