From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] udp: increment UDP_NO_PORTS when dropping unmatched multicasts Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:32:43 -0700 Message-ID: <542C2CAB.2030501@hp.com> References: <20141001151921.7131E29003A2@tardy> <542C23AA.6060505@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net To: David L Stevens , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from g4t3426.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.54]:60684 "EHLO g4t3426.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753241AbaJAQcq (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:32:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <542C23AA.6060505@oracle.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/01/2014 08:54 AM, David L Stevens wrote: > I think this would have the unpleasant side-effect of incrementing a drop > stat when we have not joined a multicast group that has UDP traffic, but the > interface is in promiscuous mode. Also, false positives for the multicast > address filter. > > Multicast address filters are not perfect matches, so it is "normal" to receive > multicasts and broadcasts that are not addressed to our host. I'm not sure those > should count as "noports" any more than traffic addressed to someone else's IP > address if we're in promiscuous mode should. > > In the multicast case, it would really only make sense if we have actually joined > the group it's addressed to. Do you think an "ignored" statistic would be appropriate then? rick