On Tuesday 19 September 2006 03:54 pm, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 September 2006 03:04 pm, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> On Tue, 2006-Sep-19 14:30:59 -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 19 September 2006 01:52 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > >>>> Which I'm about to kill hopefully. Please let's fix this the > >>>> right way and not hack it any further. > >>> > >>> Sure, no problem. But I don't think we can DTRT on -STABLE > >>> without breaking API. Can we? > >> > >> I've had a quick look into this problem because I extensively > >> use VLANs on a bge and discovered that I no longer have VLAN tag > >> details (which makes packet tracing a nuisance). > >> > >> As far as I can see, there is nothing preventing bpf_tap() and > >> bpf_mtap2() being doctored to undo the VLAN detagging so that > >> bpf_filter() is passed a mbuf chain that looks like an 802.1Q > >> ethernet frame: Dummy up an mbuf (as bpf_mtap2() does) that > >> contains the MAC addresses from the incoming data followed by > >> the 802.1Q packet type and tag information, with m_next pointing > >> to the byte after the MAC addresses in the original data. > > > > Why don't we just fake it up from ether_input() and pass it to > > BPF_MTAP() instead of 'teaching' bpf? I think it is more logical > > thing to do. > > Then it would be kinda pointless to have the hardware remove it in > the first place.
Actually that was exactly why I tried to disable hardware VLAN tagging when there is bpf peer (in this kludge, promiscuous mode instead) but I wasn't able to find better way. :-( Jung-uk Kim _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
