Herbert Xu wrote:
BTW, how does the VLAN TX acceleration work at all? It's using
skb->cb to carry the tags but then calls dev_queue_xmit. Once
you do that packet schedulers can scribble all over skb->cb.
Also vlan_skb_recv should be moved out-of-line. It's absolutely
humongous. It'll generate
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 08:49:02PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
>
> Not anymore about just e1000 :)
> I made an another patch with different approach which doesn't fix nic driver.
> In addition, this patch does disable all hw vlan acceleration features (rx,
> tx, filter) for promiscuous netdevice.
2007/11/11, Joonwoo Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 sn
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> Kok, Auke wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> I already posted a patch for this, not sure what happened to it.
> Auke, any news on merging the secondary unicast address support?
I dropped the ball on that one
> "AK" == Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AK> actually the impact can be quite negative, imagine doing a tcpdump
AK> on a 10gig interface with vlan's enabled - all of a sudden you
AK> might accidentally flood the system with a 100-fold increase in
AK> traffic and force the stack to dump
Kok, Auke wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
I already posted a patch for this, not sure what happened to it.
Auke, any news on merging the secondary unicast address support?
I dropped the ball on that one. Care to resend it and send me one for
e1000e as we
> > I'll work e1000e too :-)
>
> awesome, looking forward to that.
>
BTW, It seems to need Patrick's unicast patch for e1000e first.
I'll looking forward to that too.
Thanks
Joonwoo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTEC
Joonwoo Park wrote:
> 2007/11/14, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> Kok, Auke wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> I already posted a patch for this, not sure what happened to it.
> Auke, any news on merging the secondary unicast address support?
I dropp
2007/11/14, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Kok, Auke wrote:
> >> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >>
> >>> I already posted a patch for this, not sure what happened to it.
> >>> Auke, any news on merging the secondary unicast address support?
> >>
> >> I dropped the ball on tha
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:51:20 +0900
"Joonwoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> I already posted a patch for this, not sure what happened to it.
>>> Auke, any news on merging the secondary unicast address support?
>>
>> I dropped the ball on that one. Care to resend it and send me one for
>> e1000e as w
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> I already posted a patch for this, not sure what happened to it.
>>> Auke, any news on merging the secondary unicast address support?
>>
>> I dropped the ball on that one. Care to resend it and send me one for
>> e1000e as w
Kok, Auke wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
I already posted a patch for this, not sure what happened to it.
Auke, any news on merging the secondary unicast address support?
I dropped the ball on that one. Care to resend it and send me one for e1000e as
well?
Patch for e1000 attached.
Does e1
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 04:06:24AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
In other words we can make it so that nobody is in promiscuous
mode and therefore have to disable VLAN acceleration *unless*
they really want to be in that state. In which cas
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:16:47 +0800
> Perhaps those who want to push this patch should be encouraged
> to convert e1000 to the new interface :)
That is my feeling as well :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bo
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 04:06:24AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
In other words we can make it so that nobody is in promiscuous
mode and therefore have to disable VLAN acceleration *unless*
they really want to be in that state. In which case it would
imply that they wish to see e
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 04:06:24AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> > In other words we can make it so that nobody is in promiscuous
> > mode and therefore have to disable VLAN acceleration *unless*
> > they really want to be in that state. In which case it would
> > imply that they wish to see ever
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:03:28 +0800
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 03:36:11AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > The performance implications can be pretty severe however.
> > I wish we could address this somehow.
>
> Or perhaps we should just teach everyone to a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 03:36:11AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> The performance implications can be pretty severe however.
> I wish we could address this somehow.
Or perhaps we should just teach everyone to always run tcpdump
with -p, like me :)
Of course this would still have a negative impact
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:09:23 +0800
> I agree. People doing a tcpdump don't have to turn on promiscuous
> mode, that's what the -p option is for. In other words, having
> promiscuous mode disable VLAN filtering does not take away the
> user's options at all
Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I still think promiscous mode should disable all filters (which would
> also provide a consistent view between accerlated and non-accerlated
> devices), but an ethtool option is better than nothing :)
I agree. People doing a tcpdump don't have to tur
Joonwoo Park wrote:
2007/11/13, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:32:57 +0100
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 wo
2007/11/13, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:32:57 +0100
>
> > 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
2007/11/13, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:57:16PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:43:24 -0600
> >
> > > David Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > > When you select VLAN, you by definition are asking for n
From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:32:57 +0100
> 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.
I'm willing to accept the feature, in what
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:19:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:19:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:57:16PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:43:24 -0600
>
> > David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > When you select VLAN, you by definition are asking for non-VLAN
> > > traffic to be elided. It is like plugging th
From: "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:43:24 -0600
> David Miller wrote:
>
> > When you select VLAN, you by definition are asking for non-VLAN
> > traffic to be elided. It is like plugging the ethernet cable
> > into one switch or another.
>
> For max functionality
Chris Friesen wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>
>> When you select VLAN, you by definition are asking for non-VLAN
>> traffic to be elided. It is like plugging the ethernet cable
>> into one switch or another.
>
> For max functionality it seems like the raw eth device should show
> everything on th
David Miller wrote:
When you select VLAN, you by definition are asking for non-VLAN
traffic to be elided. It is like plugging the ethernet cable
into one switch or another.
For max functionality it seems like the raw eth device should show
everything on the wire in promiscuous mode.
If we
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:21:35 +0100
> 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.
Chan
From: "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:12:40 -0800
> 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.
>
> Afte
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.
>>> Th
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
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 vla
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, com
38 matches
Mail list logo
