Ethernet Bridge development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bridge] promiscuous mode necessary for supporting KVM?
@ 2011-03-28 14:29 Scott Koranda
  2011-03-28 15:26 ` Stephen Hemminger
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott Koranda @ 2011-03-28 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bridge

My platform is Debian Squeeze amd64:

$ /etc/network# cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 \n \l

$ /etc/network# uname -r
2.6.32-5-amd64

I followed what I believe to be the "canonical" instructions
for deploying KVM to support virtual machines on this host. My
specific need is for the virtual machines to have static IP
addresses and be visible to the LAN.

This deployment included configuring a bridge like this:


$ cat /etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

auto eth0
iface eth0 inet manual

auto br0
iface br0 inet static
address xxx.yy.zz.195
netmask 255.255.255.0
network xxx.yy.zz.0
broadcast xxx.yy.zz.255
gateway xxx.yy.zz.1
bridge_ports eth0
bridge_stp off
bridge_fd 0
bridge_maxwait 0

The bridge reports the following:

$ /etc/network# brctl show
bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled interfaces
br0             8000.0019b946d44b       no              eth0
                                                        vnet0
                                                        vnet1
                                                        vnet2
                                                        vnet3

The four VMs are using the vnetx interfaces and work exactly
as I need them to work.

A colleague, however, has written to me "The concern I have is
that apparently you must run the physical NIC in promiscuous
mode, to get bridging working with the Linux KVM module."

I want to determine if that is true.

I see the following flags set for the interfaces:

$ cat /sys/class/net/br0/flags
0x1003
$ cat /sys/class/net/eth0/flags
0x1103
$ cat /sys/class/net/vnet0/flags
0x1103

My understanding is that if the 0x100 bit is set then the
interface is in promiscuous mode.

So br0 reports it is NOT in promiscuous mode but eth0 does.

How can I tell if the "physical NIC" is in promiscuous mode?

If it is in promiscuous mode, with this configuration is that
any more of a security risk?

Why are the vnetx interfaces and eth0 in (or at least
reporting) promiscuous mode? Is that so that they can "see"
each other's traffic without having to leave the host and
return?

Thank you for your input.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bridge] promiscuous mode necessary for supporting KVM?
@ 2011-03-28 22:12 Scott Koranda
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott Koranda @ 2011-03-28 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bridge

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:29:25 -0500
> Scott Koranda <skoranda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My platform is Debian Squeeze amd64:
> >
> > $ /etc/network# cat /etc/issue
> > Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 \n \l
> >
> > $ /etc/network# uname -r
> > 2.6.32-5-amd64
> >
> > I followed what I believe to be the "canonical" instructions
> > for deploying KVM to support virtual machines on this host. My
> > specific need is for the virtual machines to have static IP
> > addresses and be visible to the LAN.
> >
> > This deployment included configuring a bridge like this:
> >
> >
> > $ cat /etc/network/interfaces
> > auto lo
> > iface lo inet loopback
> >
> > auto eth0
> > iface eth0 inet manual
> >
> > auto br0
> > iface br0 inet static
> > address xxx.yy.zz.195
> > netmask 255.255.255.0
> > network xxx.yy.zz.0
> > broadcast xxx.yy.zz.255
> > gateway xxx.yy.zz.1
> > bridge_ports eth0
> > bridge_stp off
> > bridge_fd 0
> > bridge_maxwait 0
> >
> > The bridge reports the following:
> >
> > $ /etc/network# brctl show
> > bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled interfaces
> > br0             8000.0019b946d44b       no              eth0
> >                                                         vnet0
> >                                                         vnet1
> >                                                         vnet2
> >                                                         vnet3
> >
> > The four VMs are using the vnetx interfaces and work exactly
> > as I need them to work.
> >
> > A colleague, however, has written to me "The concern I have is
> > that apparently you must run the physical NIC in promiscuous
> > mode, to get bridging working with the Linux KVM module."
> >
> > I want to determine if that is true.
> >
> > I see the following flags set for the interfaces:
> >
> > $ cat /sys/class/net/br0/flags
> > 0x1003
> > $ cat /sys/class/net/eth0/flags
> > 0x1103
> > $ cat /sys/class/net/vnet0/flags
> > 0x1103
> >
> > My understanding is that if the 0x100 bit is set then the
> > interface is in promiscuous mode.
> >
> > So br0 reports it is NOT in promiscuous mode but eth0 does.
> >
> > How can I tell if the "physical NIC" is in promiscuous mode?
> >
> > If it is in promiscuous mode, with this configuration is that
> > any more of a security risk?
> >
> > Why are the vnetx interfaces and eth0 in (or at least
> > reporting) promiscuous mode? Is that so that they can "see"
> > each other's traffic without having to leave the host and
> > return?
>
> A bridge has to receive packets for multiple destination MAC
> addresses and therefore has to put device into promiscious mode.
> That is just the way bridges work.

Thanks. I am naive about these things and this is quite helpful.

If the following questions are out of scope for this mail list please
ignore them, but
otherwise I would be grateful for any input anyone has:

- Am I correct that even though it is the bridge br0 that has the IP
addresses associated with it,
  the "physical NIC" is still represented by eth0 and so the flag status at
  /sys/class/net/eth0/flags is telling me with value 0x1103 that the
NIC is in promiscuous mode?

- Is it true that for most commodity NICs unless the card is in
promiscuous mode it will simply
  not pass on packets that are not destined for its hardware MAC
address? No driver configuration
  other than setting the card into promiscuous mode will change that?

- If the above is true, then it seems clear that any VM solution, be
it KVM, VirtualBox, or VMWare,
  where the VMs have IP addresses on the LAN and can be reached
directly from the LAN,
  must put the NIC into promiscuous mode to work. Is that true?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bridge] promiscuous mode necessary for supporting KVM?
@ 2011-03-26 20:30 Scott Koranda
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott Koranda @ 2011-03-26 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bridge

My platform is Debian Squeeze amd64:

$ /etc/network# cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 \n \l

$ /etc/network# uname -r
2.6.32-5-amd64

I followed what I believe to be the "canonical" instructions
for deploying KVM to support virtual machines on this host. My
specific need is for the virtual machines to have static IP
addresses and be visible to the LAN.

This deployment included configuring a bridge like this:

$ cat /etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

auto eth0
iface eth0 inet manual

auto br0
iface br0 inet static
address xxx.yy.zz.195
netmask 255.255.255.0
network xxx.yy.zz.0
broadcast xxx.yy.zz.255
gateway xxx.yy.zz.1
bridge_ports eth0
bridge_stp off
bridge_fd 0
bridge_maxwait 0

The bridge reports the following:

$ /etc/network# brctl show
bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled interfaces
br0             8000.0019b946d44b       no              eth0
                                                        vnet0
                                                        vnet1
                                                        vnet2
                                                        vnet3

The four VMs are using the vnetx interfaces and work exactly
as I need them to work.

A colleague, however, has written to me "The concern I have is
that apparently you must run the physical NIC in promiscuous
mode, to get bridging working with the Linux KVM module."

I want to determine if that is true.

I see the following flags set for the interfaces:

$ cat /sys/class/net/br0/flags 
0x1003
$ cat /sys/class/net/eth0/flags 
0x1103
$ cat /sys/class/net/vnet0/flags 
0x1103

My understanding is that if the 0x100 bit is set then the
interface is in promiscuous mode.

So br0 reports it is NOT in promiscuous mode but eth0 does.

How can I tell if the "physical NIC" is in promiscuous mode?

If it is in promiscuous mode, with this configuration is that
any more of a security risk?

Why are the vnetx interfaces and eth0 in (or at least
reporting) promiscuous mode? Is that so that they can "see"
each other's traffic without having to leave the host and
return?

Thank you for your input.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-03-28 22:12 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-03-28 14:29 [Bridge] promiscuous mode necessary for supporting KVM? Scott Koranda
2011-03-28 15:26 ` Stephen Hemminger
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-28 22:12 Scott Koranda
2011-03-26 20:30 Scott Koranda

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox