Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757090AbXKLSCf (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:02:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754950AbXKLSCW (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:02:22 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:43018 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754514AbXKLSCT (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:02:19 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,406,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="268859166" Message-ID: <4738950D.7070902@intel.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:01:49 -0800 From: "Kok, Auke" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070911) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick McHardy CC: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "'Dave Johnson'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonwoo Park , "'David Miller'" Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH 2/2] [e1000 VLAN] Disable vlan hw accel when promiscuous mode References: <47365200.0f10240a.0686.2173@mx.google.com> <47388988.1000506@intel.com> <47388B9F.7050308@trash.net> In-Reply-To: <47388B9F.7050308@trash.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2007 18:02:17.0620 (UTC) FILETIME=[29A5B540:01C82556] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1467 Lines: 35 Patrick McHardy wrote: > Kok, Auke wrote: >> Joonwoo Park wrote: >>> IMHO even though netdevice is in the promiscuous mode, we should receive all of ingress packets. >>> This disable the vlan filtering feature when a vlan hw accel configured e1000 device goes into promiscuous mode. >>> This make packets visible to sniffers though it's not vlan id of itself. >>> Any check, comments will be appreciated. >> Actually I think this patch removes a choice from the user. >> >> Before this patch, the user can sniff all traffic by disabling vlans, or a >> specific vlan only by leaving vlans on when going into promisc mode. >> >> After this patch, the user has no choice but to sniff all vlans at all times. >> >> I don't think that that is such a good improvement. > > > Do you really consider that a realistic choice? Who is going to > remove interfaces that are in use just to see traffic for other > VLANs? Sniffing specific VLANs can always be done on the VLAN > device itself. right, I had not thought of that. > IMO its more a question of what we want promiscous mode to mean, > and I tend to agree with Joonwoo that it should receive all packets. OK, Joonwoo: can you submit a patch against e1000e as well? Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/