From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: IFF_PROMISC again Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:08:18 -0700 Message-ID: <465385F2.7080309@candelatech.com> References: <1178044568.7116.14.camel@abraxas.dyn-o-saur.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFydMOtbiBGZXJyYXJp?= Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:52972 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756741AbXEWAIZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 20:08:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1178044568.7116.14.camel@abraxas.dyn-o-saur.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Mart=C3=ADn Ferrari wrote: > Hi, for the nth time I send this email, hoping that majordomo won't e= at > it again. >=20 >=20 > I know this has been extensibly discussed circa 2001, but I found tha= t > there's still problems: in debian (at least) neither ifconfig nor ip > can tell that the interface is in promiscuous mode. >=20 > I know about the deprecation of IFF_PROMISC, but I couldn't find out > which is the current way of knowing the real state of the interface. = I > want to fix ifconfig, so this is not an issue of > PACKET_(ADD|REMOVE)_MEMBERSHIP, I need to query the real device state= =2E I have the same problem. I think you can tell by looking at bit 0x100 in /sys/class/net/[ethX]/flags Not exactly fun to use, but it seems to work. Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag in dev_get_flags() ? Ben --=20 Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com