From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Is it valid to add a macvlan virtual interface to a bridge? If so, there seems to be a bug with it. Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:55:25 +0100 Message-ID: <496ACD3D.6000608@trash.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:55354 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751066AbZALEzk (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:55:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Herbert Xu wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> I've had a look at the dev.c file in 2.6.27, and my very naive guess >>> is that as the handle_bridge() call is before the handle_macvlan() call, >>> because the incoming real physical interface is not part of the bridge, >>> the incoming unicast packet is being dropped, before the macvlan code >>> gets a look at it. >> Yes, that seems correct. > > Would it be possible to implement promiscuous mode for macvlans by > simply keeping a separate list of macvlan devices in promiscuous > mode and sending all inbound packets to them? > > This should make bridging work, right? I think that should work, at least if we also put the underlying device in promiscous mode. It wouldn't really be *mac*vlan anymore though :) I've put it on my TODO list, though I won't be able to take care of this any time soon.