On Wed, 2006-Sep-20 09:52:36 +0100, David Malone wrote: >Putting ethernet specific code in bpf_* feels like a bad idea.
Is this any worse than having ethernet specific code in the mbuf header? > It >should be possible to leave hardware assisted VLAN tagging on and >get ether input to reinsert the tag only in cases where there is a >bpf listener. This could still be seen as a layering violation but is probably cleaner. >(It's interesting to note that as ethernet cards introduce more >features it is getting harder for us to tell what we put on the >wire. This probably makes it more critical for bpf to not automatically disable NIC features, otherwise we run the risk of introducing heisenbugs in the network system. >With VLAN tagging we can't trust the VLAN tag. Unlike checksums etc, the kernel must be able to determine the VLAN tag to be able to process the packet. The problem is that it isn't where bpf expects. -- Peter Jeremy
pgp7a4IOcWRql.pgp
Description: PGP signature
