Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:53:14 +0900 From: Yonghyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r260224 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <20140106065314.GB1372@michelle.cdnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <201401031103.s03B3CAf013123@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201401031103.s03B3CAf013123@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:03:12AM +0000, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Author: glebius > Date: Fri Jan 3 11:03:12 2014 > New Revision: 260224 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260224 > > Log: > Make failure of ifpromisc() a non-fatal error. This makes it possible to > run carp(4) on vtnet(4). > vtnet(4) is the only device that doesn't correctly support promiscuous mode? I don't know details of vtnet(4) but it seems it's not hard to mimic promiscuous mode. I'm not sure why the driver returns ENOTSUP to user land given that vtnet(4) defaults to promiscuous mode for backwards compatibility. It also does not handle multicast filter configuration when VTNET_FLAG_CTRL_RX flag is not set. If vtnet(4) does not support multicast filter, it shouldn't announce IFF_MULTICAST. I wonder how vtnet(4) can work with carp(4) given that its multicast handling is ignored.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140106065314.GB1372>