Subject: Re: problem with promiscous mode and vlans
To: Jason Thorpe <>
From: Manuel Bouyer <>
List: tech-net
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. 
     NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference