Hi Alfredo, The application itself is one of the example application provided by pf_ring itself called "pfcount". Here is a decription of he steps done: Download pf_ring 6.0.3 and compile it 64bit (including drivers' PF_RING_aware subdirectory). (need to fix a small bug in pfcount.c by adding "break;" at line 799, so that it will be possible to use the option "-u"). On production env, suppose current working directory is PF_RING's source root.
>From this point, the commands are: rmmod ixgbe rmmod pf_ring insmod ./kernel/pf_ring.ko insmod ./drivers/PF_RING_aware/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe-3.22.3-zc/src/ixgbe.ko ./userland/examples/pfcount -i eth3 -w 1 -m -v 1 -u 1 You can replay the following pcap that contains 344 packets: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B10Ms5GOXgCxS0dxR3lTZUoyRHZyUlpoemJfT0k2cS1QRGFr/view?usp=sharing You should see that "pfcount" stops showing packets from this pcap (since the hash filter is applied), but on the other hand, it shows the following message (especially the first one): 13:02:28.616480105 [RX][if_index=29][00:30:05:4B:19:2C -> 00:01:02:03:04:05] [vlan 12] [IPv4][10.12.150.231:2489 -> 10.61.12.31:139] [l3_proto=TCP][hash=340372828][tos=0][tcp_seq_num=3256921511] [caplen=128][len=242][parsed_header_len=0][eth_offset=0][l3_offset=18][l4_offset=38][payload_offset=58] pfring_add_hash_filtering_rule(1) failed This error message indicates that pfring_add_hash_filtering_rule() returned failure in userland. Note that despite the returned error in userland, the hash rule has been added successfully in the kernel. Thanks, Amir On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Amir > could you provide a sample application, or a code snippet, we can use to > reproduce the issue? > > Thank you > Alfredo > > > On 11 May 2015, at 10:52, Amir Kaduri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm experiencing a possible bug in the API > pfring_handle_hash_filtering_rule(), when adding a rule. > > The API return -1 (failure) although the hash rule has been added > successfully. > > I experience it in versions 6.0.2 and 6.0.3. > > In version 6.0.1 it works fine. > > Can anyone please confirm that there is a bug? > > If yes, can I have a patch for it, or even a quick-and-dirty explanation > on how to solve it? > > > > Thanks, > > Amir >
_______________________________________________ Ntop-misc mailing list [email protected] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
