From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: IFF_PROMISC again Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:22:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4653895E.9000801@candelatech.com> References: <1178044568.7116.14.camel@abraxas.dyn-o-saur.com> <465385F2.7080309@candelatech.com> <20070522.171225.70219741.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: martin.ferrari@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:36949 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756919AbXEWAXB (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 20:23:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070522.171225.70219741.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Greear > Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:08:18 -0700 > >> Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag >> in dev_get_flags() ? > > Because promiscuous status is a counter, not a binary > on-off state. > > You can't expect to just clear it and expect all the > other promiscuous users to just "go away" and be ok > with the device leaving promiscuous mode. Yes, I understand why you wouldn't let a user set promisc in this manner. > Since you can't sanely "set" it, we don't provide it > either. What harm is there letting the user know if their hardware is PROMISC or not, regardless of how it got that way? Also, it seems you *can* at least turn it on with ifconfig, and you can decrement at least once with ifconfig as well. If nothing else has promiscuity set, then this will indeed toggle the state, right? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com