From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8IHD-0001b6-Ke for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:04:51 -0700 Received: from web25219.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.146.176.205]) by mail.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1G8IHD-0004rh-0b for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:04:51 -0700 Message-ID: <20060802150443.99963.qmail@web25219.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 17:04:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Paolo Giarrusso In-Reply-To: <3A30AD378ECC6F41A4AC64F18E8B3F7F6E0A21@ala-mail04.corp.ad.wrs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [uml-user] Promiscuous mode interface bug? List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: "Stephens, Allan" , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: user-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net "Stephens, Allan" ha scritto: > Hi Paolo: > > OK, let me take one more try at explaining what I've observed. > (And my > apologies for making this whole issue more confusing than necessary > ... > I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes to detailing with the > details of > network interface operation.) > > When I used "ethX=daemon", each interface I configured on a UML > guest > forwarded only the traffic that was destined for it to my network > protocol software -- indicating that the uml_switch application was > getting UML to filter things correctly. Does it works corrently even with uml_switch -hub or not? > When I used "ethX=mcast", each interface I configured on a UML > guest > forwarded all packets sent to the associated multicast group to my > network protocol software which I guess operates with raw sockets... >, even though the interfaces were not > configured as "promiscuous". > The latter observation was the source of my original concern, > causing me > to ask "why doesn't UML mark the device as promiscuous if it is > passing > on all packets?". Your subsequent explanations now make me think > that I > should have asked "why isn't UML filtering out the unwanted packets > since the device isn't configured as promiscuous?". > I just repeated my "ethX=mcast" testing to make sure I hadn't done > something stupid, like configure both interfaces with the same MAC > address, but I still see the same result. This leads me to > conclude > that there is a real problem with the way UML is filtering packets > on > "ethX=mcast" interfaces. Admittedly, I can circumvent this problem > being by manually configuring the interfaces as promiscuous, but it > still looks like a bug. > Does this (finally) make sense? Yes, it makes a lot of sense (in fact I'm forwarding this to uml-devel); I have looked at the code but I don't see any really _obvious_ difference. Everything depends on uml_switch -hub result, which I'd like to see. Thanks for your effort meanwhile! Bye Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel