From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: permisions for Ethetool vs rtnetlink Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:08:54 -0800 Message-ID: <47B218F6.3070903@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linux Network Development list Return-path: Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.34]:9026 "EHLO g1t0027.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755875AbYBLWI4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:08:56 -0500 Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by receive-from-antispam-filter (Postfix) with SMTP id 09A0138143 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tardy.cup.hp.com (tardy.cup.hp.com [15.244.56.217]) by g1t0027.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6F738050 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tardy.cup.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_28810)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id OAA13498 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:08:54 -0800 (PST) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I've been further enhancing the netperf omni tests to enable reporting stuff like uname for local/remote, the name of the probable egress interface (rtnetlink), and then driver information for that interface. I figure that such information being spat-out by netperf might be useful to have if one were setting-up a database of results and/or making regression checks and the like. It struck me as a little odd that I can retrieve routing information for a destination as a mere mortal, but to retreive driver information for an interface I have to be priviledged. At first glance I would think the sensitivity of both sets of information would be about the same? Is the difference simply an artifact of history? sincerely, rick jones