Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:04:49 +0200 (CEST) From: elof2@sentor.se To: Sergey Akhmatov <stell@genossen.ru> Cc: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: oce(4) promiscous mode bug(?) Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1506171653020.71767@farmermaggot.shire.sentor.se> In-Reply-To: <55817E80.7020003@genossen.ru> References: <5581427D.9070007@genossen.ru> <106C87E2-7097-416B-841B-B1C4D74E9ABA@sarenet.es> <55816EE1.7030004@genossen.ru> <E4ED4409-CB39-4EFE-80D5-5D691B8F07C1@sarenet.es> <55817E80.7020003@genossen.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It sounds like a promisc bug in the driver, just as you say, but just to test it some more: I see that you are running both in PPROMISC and PROMISC. What happen if you remove the PPROMISC and only let tcpdump set it's own PROMISC? Running in monitor mode is the correct way to sniff traffic. But just to rule out errors in the oce driver, what happen if you do not run in monitor mode? Do 'netstat -in' show the same input errors as your sysctl counter? (I assume you're running tcpdump with no bpf filter at all) What do a couple of 'netstat -B' say while tcpdump is running? /Elof On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Sergey Akhmatov wrote: > Tried disabling all offloadings available, doesn't help. > >> Sorry, in that case I don't know what it might be. >> >> Have you tried disabling "adapter intelligence"? rxcsum, txcsum, lro, etc? > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1506171653020.71767>