Hi Jason
the code in svn contains some fixes for kernel 3.13, thus I cannot tell you 
6.0.1 supports kernel 3.13.

Alfredo

On 20 Jul 2014, at 19:25, dn1nj4 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey Alfredo,
> 
> I did not.  I generally avoid delopying code in production that has not been 
> released as Stable.  So does 6.0.1 Stable not support Kernel 3.13?
> 
> Thanks!
> Jason
> 
>> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:35:09 +0200
>> From: Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Ntop-misc] PF_RING 6.0.1/Linux Kernel 3.13 Problems
>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> 
>> Hi Jason
>> code from SVN should support 3.13, did you try updating from SVN?
>> 
>> Alfredo
>> 
>>> On 18 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> Yesterday I upgraded a number of my systems to the Linux 3.13 kernel and 
>>> PF-RING from 5.6.2 to 6.0.1.  I have encountered several significant 
>>> problems after the upgrades.
>>> 
>>> First, one of my systems which was collecting around 900Mbps began 
>>> recording only 1Mbps.  Rolling back just the PF_RING 5.6.2 kernel module 
>>> (compiled against the 3.13 kernel) fixed this problem and capture levels 
>>> returned to normal.
>>> 
>>> Second, a different system running several capture processes is recording 
>>> packets filtered with "port 25" as ethernet packets only.  It appears as 
>>> though the IP and TCP headers are being stripped, but the ethernet and tcp 
>>> payload are being stored.  The only way I was able to get this working 
>>> again was to roll back to an old 3.2 kernel, the PF_RING 5.6.2 kernel 
>>> module AND the the PF_RING libpcap library.  This behavior appeared with 
>>> every packet capture tool I tried (snort, tcpdump, bro, etc).
>>> 
>>> Is the 3.13 linux kernel officially supported?  Is there something else 
>>> that might cause these strange errors?
>>> 
>>> In all cases I was running transparent mode 0 with the vanilla NIC drivers.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Jason
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ntop-misc mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:50:29 +0000
>> From: Mike Patterson <[email protected]>
>> To: "<[email protected]>"
>>   <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [Ntop-misc] Snort, DNA DAQ, bpf
>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>> 
>> Oh! Sorry, I didn't understand what you were asking. Will follow up, yeah.
>> 
>> thanks!
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:39, "Alfredo Cardigliano" <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Mike
>>> as I said, if it is possible please provide us access to your machine (feel 
>>> free to contact me directly)
>>> 
>>> Alfredo
>>> 
>>>> On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:25, Mike Patterson <[email protected]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sure, just let me know what I should do and I?ll do it. :) The sooner I 
>>>> can fix this, the sooner I can release my older hardware to do other 
>>>> things.
>>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 16, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Mike
>>>>> bpf support in the daq-dna is available since r2679, so it is supposed to 
>>>>> work with your version.
>>>>> Do we have a chance to debug this on your machine?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 16 Jul 2014, at 17:51, Mike Patterson <[email protected]> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On my previous Snort sensor, built on an Endace DAG, I had a BPF for 
>>>>>> Snort to exclude certain types of traffic. The BPF worked fine; Snort 
>>>>>> 2.9.5.1 and some previous versions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When I changed my Snort sensor to an X520 + PF_RING / DNA, that BPF 
>>>>>> stopped working. I can tell that Snort is loading it - it says as much 
>>>>>> in syslog - but it will still happily alert on traffic matching those 
>>>>>> exclusions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I?ve tried various iterations (I posted more detail on the snort-users 
>>>>>> list if anybody wants to look, or I can re-paste it here), but 
>>>>>> succinctly:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) I don?t think it?s Snort itself - it did work on my previous 
>>>>>> platform. I tried differing versions of Snort just to be sure - 2.9.5.1, 
>>>>>> 2.9.6.0, 2.9.6.1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2) I built tcpdump from the PF_RING distribution, and handed it the same 
>>>>>> BPF - it worked just fine, or at least, tcpdump didn?t complain about 
>>>>>> the BPF. I did a trivial test:
>>>>>> tcpdump -i dna1@0 -n -w test.lpc not net 10.0.0.1/24
>>>>>> tcpdump -r test.lpc net 10.0.0.1/24
>>>>>> and got the expected output (nothing). So I *think* that this means 
>>>>>> libpcap (also built from PF_RING distribution) is fine.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3) Following the advice and some other troubleshooting on snort-users, I 
>>>>>> verified that I?m not seeing this traffic as a result of GRE tunnelling 
>>>>>> or VLAN tags.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Versions:
>>>>>> PF_RING 6.0.1
>>>>>> pfring-daq-module-dna_r2795 (I?d also tried pfring-daq-module-dna_r2521)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Intel-based machine is not yet in production, so I can fairly easily 
>>>>>> try anything people might suggest.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other details of my environment:
>>>>>> RHEL 6.5
>>>>>> Intel X520 NIC:
>>>>>> 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation Ethernet 10G 2P X520 
>>>>>> Adapter (rev 01)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /proc/net/pf_ring/info is:
>>>>>> PF_RING Version          : 6.0.1 ($Revision: exported$)
>>>>>> Total rings              : 0
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Standard (non DNA) Options
>>>>>> Ring slots               : 16384
>>>>>> Slot version             : 15
>>>>>> Capture TX               : No [RX only]
>>>>>> IP Defragment            : Yes
>>>>>> Socket Mode              : Standard
>>>>>> Transparent mode         : No [mode 2]
>>>>>> Total plugins            : 0
>>>>>> Cluster Fragment Queue   : 0
>>>>>> Cluster Fragment Discard : 0
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The X520 plugs into a tool port on an Arista 7150S. The DAG plugs into 
>>>>>> another tool port on the same switch; both tool ports are in the same 
>>>>>> aggregation group, so they should be getting identical data.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I *do* have the option of applying the BPF on the Arista switch itself, 
>>>>>> although I?d rather avoid that if I can.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks in advance for any advice/debugging suggestions/etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Ntop-misc mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ntop-misc mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ntop-misc mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ntop-misc mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ntop-misc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>> 
>> 
>> End of Ntop-misc Digest, Vol 121, Issue 17
>> ******************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop-misc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

_______________________________________________
Ntop-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

Reply via email to