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:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 19:51:24 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>
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: <20190902175124.GA2312@nanopsycho>
References: <20190829193613.GA23259@splinter>
 <20190829.151201.940681219080864052.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20190830053940.GL2312@nanopsycho>
 <20190829.230233.287975311556641534.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20190830063624.GN2312@nanopsycho>
 <20190902174229.uur7r7duq4dvbnqq@lx-anielsen.microsemi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190902174229.uur7r7duq4dvbnqq@lx-anielsen.microsemi.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:42:31PM CEST, allan.nielsen@microchip.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@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

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.


>- 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
>