Re: [PATCH 2/2] [e1000 VLAN] Disable vlan hw accel when promiscuous mode

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:19:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:15:16 +0100
> 
> > I can say that sometimes you'd like to be aware that one of your
> > VLANs is wrong and you'd simply like to sniff the wire to guess the
> > correct tag. And on production, you simply cannot remove other
> > VLANs, otherwise you disrupt the service.
> 
> If you were plugged into the wrong physical switch, how might
> you debug that problem in production? :-)

tcpdump on an unfiltered RJ45 tells you a lot of things. Some switches
for instance send keepalive packets (ether proto 9000) with their own
MAC as source+dest, others send CDP packets, etc... I've very rarely
stayed plugged to the wrong switch for too long before discovering it.
But that requires the ability to sniff.

> Really, it's the same issue, just virtualized, as in the name
> for the feature, VLAN.

No, it's not the same, because as soon as you pass through a switch
which is not configured for VLANs, it does not make any distinction,
and the same DMAC is considered on a single port whatever the VLAN.
This is not true with multiple switches. Also, sometimes, being able
to see that your port gets flooded with traffic for a VLAN on which
you're not configured helps you understand why you cannot fill the
port.

I'd like that we can use the hardware correctly without having to
buy TAPs. It reminds me the discussions about TOE. You claim
yourself that TOE is bad in part because you have little if any
control on the bugs on the TCP stack on the chip. This is the same
here. If I know that the chip does not send me what it receives
when configured in promiscuous mode, I can I swear it never received
the missing packet ? There's always a doubt. Maybe sometimes the
filter is buggy, maybe it only passes tags when the remaining bits
are all zero, etc... Promiscuous mode generally means that you're
the closest possible to the wire. We already do not receive pause
frames and sometimes that's annoying. But having no control over
what we want to see is frustrating.

At least, being able to disable the feature at module load time
would be acceptable. Many people who often need to sniff on decent
machines would always keep it disabled.

Regards,
Willy

-
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/