Bruce, > >And a question: can anyone say if my patch will break some known > >good behaviour and if the current behaviour of if_bridge is based > >on some logic I am currently failing to understand. > > > I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at the combined M_PROMISC and > 802.1p patch, which rewrites ether_input() significantly. It sounds like the > issues you are having with vlans and bridges may potentially be fixed by this > patch, or that the fix may be incorporated more easily with this patch.
Studied your patch as a patch, but not tried it on a live system. I feel that your patch will not help in my situation, just because my problem lies in the if_bridge.c::bridge_input() that is invoked from if_ethersubr.c as BRIDGE_INPUT() macro. I see that your patch sets some flags, tries to handle 802.1q packets, gives netgraph a chance on the packet, but still passes the packet to BRIDGE_INPUT just clearing the M_PROMISC bit. And all Bad Things in my case are done in the bridge_input. As my packets are going to the ether_input with VLAN tags stripped by hardware and the if_bridge does not care about M_PROMISC I see no theoretical difference if your patch will be applied. Sure, I can test it, but then I need to know what problems are cured by your patch, or I just should watch if it will not break something. > In NetBSD, after if_bridge is given a chance to claim an input frame, the ifp > may be changed if the bridge needs to forward locally. In my case if_bridge drops off the packet because firewall fails to recognize the packet as good: the interface that is passed to a pfil_hooks is bad (I mean not the one expected). > M_PROMISC is used to > indicate that a frame was received promiscuously, in case ether_input() > re-enters itself with the same mbuf chain. Certain consumers of ether_input() > need to punch holes in the logic used to detect if a frame was for us or not > because they do funky things with Ethernet destination addresses, e.g. carp. By the way: just grepped /sys/net and /sys/netinet on the 6-STABLE for the M_PROMISC -- no hits. Are you talking about 6-STABLE or 7-CURRENT? I have my issue on the 6-STABLE, but 7-CURRENT should also have it. Will try to see if your patch makes any difference for the 7-CURRENT, but I have no system at hand to test it, sorry. -- Eygene _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
