Darren Reed wrote:
On 25/08/09 05:59 PM, Yunsong (Roamer) Lu wrote:
Darren Reed wrote:
I don't think snoop is supposed to do all sanity check for the
driver. Actually it's simple for the snoop users to figure out such
misbehavior without seeing a warning.
If I send a packet using a raw socket, to a network interface, that
looks just like the one that comes from inside the kernel, how is
snoop going to know the difference?
Are you saying to send a LSO packet from raw socket to a interface?
Not quite.
The "warnings" that snoop prints are because sanity checks fail due to
the way the packet in the mblk_t's is put together by the kernel. It is
possible for a user application, using a raw socket, to build a packet
that looks exactly like it and send that.
To snoop, both packets will look the same.
To the driver, one (from the kernel) will have all of the hardware
checksum bits and the other (from the application) will not.
Are you suggesting that snoop should warn for such packets?
Thanks,
Roamer
--
# telnet (650)-786-6759 (x86759)
Connected to Solaris.Sun.COM.
login: Lu, Yunsong
Last login: January 2, 2007 from beyond.sfbay
[email protected] v1.04 Since Mon Dec. 22, 2003
[roa...@solaris Networking]# cd ..
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
