Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 03:01:00 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bridge callbacks in if_ed.c? Message-ID: <20040905230100.GA82214@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040905142036.A23213@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20040905205249.GA81337@cell.sick.ru> <20040905142036.A23213@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 02:20:36PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: L> there are performance reasons to do this way -- grabbing L> the entire packet is expensive because it is done via programmed L> I/O, so the current code only grabs the header, does the L> filtering, and grabs the rest of the packet only if L> needed. Well, thinking deeply I have to admit that percentage of dropped packets can be high under normal operation. If we are connected to non-swithced network (e.g. coax) percentage of dropped packets is high... But my position didn't change, I absolutely agree with Andre. We can't keep this hack for the sake of very old and rare hardware. L> I'd rather not apply the patch unless you can show that L> the current code leads to incorrect behaviour. I suspect that packets dropped by bridge_in() called from if_ed will not be captured by bpf(4). This is incorrect. System administrators expect bpf(4) to be at the lowest possible layer, thinking "if packet came on wire - tcpdump must show it". -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040905230100.GA82214>