On 2015-03-21 at 22:58:17 +0100, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> From: Vadim Kochan
>
> Signed-off-by: Vadim Kochan
Applied, thank you Vadim!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"netsniff-ng" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
Hi Lorenzo,
On 03/22/2015 03:13 PM, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to send UDP packets with zero length withthis simple configuration
on trafgen:
{
# --- ethernet header ---
0xbe, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x12, 0x1c, 0x57, # mac destination
0xfa, 0x16, 0x3e, 0xa0, 0x5d, 0x1
I was hoping you could give me debugging tips. I checked all I could
(dmesg, echo 1 > rp_filter, strace -f), and I couldn't see anything
suspicious. I have nothing in my iptables or tc, and tso is off.The
exact command line is "strace -f trafgen -c theconfig.cfg -o wlp3s0 -n 10".
Il 23/03/2015
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:25:26AM +0100, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
> I was hoping you could give me debugging tips. I checked all I could (dmesg,
> echo 1 > rp_filter, strace -f), and I couldn't see anything suspicious. I
> have nothing in my iptables or tc, and tso is off.The exact command line is
>
On 03/23/2015 11:37 AM, Vadim Kochan wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:25:26AM +0100, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
...
Thats what I got on 3.18 with the same cfg file:
$ trafgen/trafgen -c ~/trafgen.cfg -o wlp3s0 -n 1
4 packets to schedule
168 bytes in total
Running! Hang up with ^C!
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:12:54PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 03/23/2015 11:37 AM, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:25:26AM +0100, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
> ...
> >Thats what I got on 3.18 with the same cfg file:
> >
> >$ trafgen/trafgen -c ~/trafgen.cfg -o wlp3s0 -n 1
> >
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:07:24PM +0200, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:12:54PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 03/23/2015 11:37 AM, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> > >On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:25:26AM +0100, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
> > ...
> > >Thats what I got on 3.18 with the same
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:03:54PM +0200, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:07:24PM +0200, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:12:54PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 03/23/2015 11:37 AM, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> > > >On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:25:26AM +0100, Loren
So I tried now without -n, still absolutely no packet out on real
devices (contrary to lo), but when interrupting I get "Cannot destroy
the TX_RING: Device or resource busy!" for each CPU (so 4 times in my
case). Looks like a start.
Il 23/03/2015 10:27, Daniel Borkmann ha scritto:
Hi Lorenzo,
I don't get the same message (obviously) with not -n but -t, however
still no packet gets out.
Il 23/03/2015 15:23, Lorenzo Pistone ha scritto:
So I tried now without -n, still absolutely no packet out on real
devices (contrary to lo), but when interrupting I get "Cannot destroy
the TX_RING: D
On 03/23/2015 03:24 PM, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
I don't get the same message (obviously) with not -n but -t, however still no
packet gets out.
Well, with -t you'll be using sendto(), so that's expected.
So let me ask a stupid question, assuming you don't use -n and therefore
not hit this round
I'm checking with netsniff-ng, I use the same interface with which I'm
sending this email
Il 23/03/2015 15:33, Daniel Borkmann ha scritto:
On 03/23/2015 03:24 PM, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
I don't get the same message (obviously) with not -n but -t, however
still no packet gets out.
Well, with
On 03/23/2015 03:39 PM, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
I'm checking with netsniff-ng, I use the same interface with which I'm sending
this email
Ok, well that doesn't work. If you emit packets with trafgen, it
uses by default a path that bypasses the traffic control layer.
If you really want to see w
ah, you got me there. indeed if I sniff on another host packets are
sent. I was fooled by the fact that I can see the packets on lo, is that
because lo is "noqueue"? sorry for the noise anyway.
Il 23/03/2015 15:46, Daniel Borkmann ha scritto:
On 03/23/2015 03:39 PM, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
I'm
On 03/23/2015 03:56 PM, Lorenzo Pistone wrote:
ah, you got me there. indeed if I sniff on another host packets are sent.
> I was fooled by the fact that I can see the packets on lo, is that because
> lo is "noqueue"? sorry for the noise anyway.
No problem, the bypass is for performance reasons.
15 matches
Mail list logo
