Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to dev->promiscuity.

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	jiri@resnulli.us, horatiu.vultur@microchip.com,
	alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
	allan.nielsen@microchip.com, ivecera@redhat.com,
	f.fainelli@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net: core: Notify on changes to dev->promiscuity.
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 21:35:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190831193556.GB2647@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190830094319.GA31789@splinter>

> Also, what happens when I'm running these application without putting
> the interface in promisc mode? On an offloaded interface I would not be
> able to even capture packets addressed to my interface's MAC address.

Sorry for rejoining the discussion late. I've been travelling and i'm
now 3/4 of the way to Lisbon.

That statement i don't get. If the frame has the MAC address of the
interface, it has to be delivered to the CPU. And so pcap will see it
when running on the interface. I can pretty much guarantee every DSA
driver does that.

But to address the bigger picture. My understanding is that we want to
model offloading as a mechanism to accelerate what Linux can already
do. The user should not have to care about these accelerators. The
interface should work like a normal Linux interface. I can put an IP
address on it and ping a peer. I can run a dhcp client and get an IP
address from a dhcp server. I can add the interface to a bridge, and
packets will get bridged. I as a user should not need to care if this
is done in software, or accelerated by offloading it. I can add a
route, and if the accelerate knows about L3, it can accelerate that as
well. If not, the kernel will route it.

So if i run wireshark on an interface, i expect the interface will be
put into promisc mode and i see all packets ingressing the interface.
What the accelerator needs to do to achieve this, i as a user don't
care.

I can follow the argument that i won't necessarily see every
packet. But that is always true. For many embedded systems, the CPU is
too slow to receive at line rate, even when we are talking about 1G
links. Packets do get dropped. And i hope tcpdump users understand
that.

For me, having tcpdump use tc trap is just wrong. It breaks the model
that the user should not care about the accelerator. If anything, i
think the driver needs to translate cBPF which pcap passes to the
kernel to whatever internal format the accelerator can process. That
is just another example of using hardware acceleration.

   Andrew