Subject: Re: problem with promiscous mode and vlans
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 03/20/2003 16:23:00
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:19:07AM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 07:48 AM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >But what do you think about M_PROMISC ? Should it be a plain m_flag, or
> >is uing a M_LINK for it OK ?
> >I think it's OK, after all M_PROMISC is constrained to if_ethersubr.c
> Hm.. yah, I suppose it is okay to use an M_LINKx flag, then. We just
> need to be careful not to let that bit bleed out into the rest of the
> kernel. (And for most applications, it doesn't really matter if the
> packet was received promiscuously or not, so...)
You, mean, clear it before delivery to upper layer ?
No real need for this, a M_PROMISC packet is supposed to be freed in
ether_input(), unless it's delivered to a layer (e.g. vlan) that will loop
it to ether_input().
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference