[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: netbsd-tech-net
Subject: Re: problem with promiscous mode and vlans
From: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer () antioche ! lip6 ! fr>
Date: 2003-03-20 15:23:00
[Download RAW message or body]
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:19:07AM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 07:48 AM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>
> >But what do you think about M_PROMISC ? Should it be a plain m_flag, or
> >is uing a M_LINK for it OK ?
> >I think it's OK, after all M_PROMISC is constrained to if_ethersubr.c
> >...
>
> Hm.. yah, I suppose it is okay to use an M_LINKx flag, then. We just
> need to be careful not to let that bit bleed out into the rest of the
> kernel. (And for most applications, it doesn't really matter if the
> packet was received promiscuously or not, so...)
You, mean, clear it before delivery to upper layer ?
No real need for this, a M_PROMISC packet is supposed to be freed in
ether_input(), unless it's delivered to a layer (e.g. vlan) that will loop
it to ether_input().
--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic