From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 22 06:09:09 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254FB16A41F for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 06:09:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ianf@clue.co.za) Received: from munchkin.clue.co.za (munchkin.clue.co.za [66.219.59.160]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34E613C48C for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 06:09:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ianf@clue.co.za) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=20070313; d=clue.co.za; h=Received:Received:Received:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:X-Attribution:Date:Message-Id; b=SFstg/bKcI6OX9ISmunY9YfPujfW6PXbRgCPD51821UkhRpRdjgraU066SZQFymjEDRKbtt0W+wNYmUkTMXr/dKap+13YtgCe+ivunJ2yIfZeG+sAFOSwpTjmpY8gbr0Dk59Lgri/OWBJQ8Ypb2lwrTM5xzPfLNgKYmyB5Y7U9+88WJ50fxUwB4D8asdEpmYU1PuT7AlMCZeZcc6/Zxvxththq2Yt4lMdzVHgTQaEyj46257ZUE65EoQDUlOl38+; Received: from uucp by munchkin.clue.co.za with local (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1HqNYS-0005Ni-1r; Tue, 22 May 2007 06:09:08 +0000 Received: from cluetoy.clue.co.za ([10.0.0.19] helo=clue.co.za) by urchin.clue.co.za with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1HqNYG-00014D-6S; Tue, 22 May 2007 06:08:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by clue.co.za with esmtp (Exim 4.66 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1HqNYF-0000aO-8h; Tue, 22 May 2007 08:08:55 +0200 To: "Jack Vogel" , freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Ian FREISLICH In-Reply-To: Message from Ian FREISLICH of "Tue, 22 May 2007 07:19:11 +0200." X-Attribution: BOFH Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:08:55 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: Subject: Re: em0 hijacking traffic to port 623 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 06:09:09 -0000 Ian FREISLICH wrote: > "Jack Vogel" wrote: > > On 5/21/07, Sten Spans wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > > > I've looked at the bios, but I can't find any settings that remotely > > > > hint IPMI or RMCP+ or serial-over-lan. > > > > > > > > Does anyone know how I can stop the card or system from stealing > > > > port 623 in hardware or must I just stop using em0 (and/or Intel NICS)? > > > > > > Does "ifconfig em0 promisc" help ? > > > That fixed firmware related vanishing ipv6 packets on fxp and em. > > > > Is this happening even with the latest CURRENT driver, there is code in > > it now that is supposed to stop the firmware from doing that, at least > > that was the theory :) > > No, it's a March 6 current. How safe is it to just update the > sys/dev/em directory and recompile? Quite a lot has changed in > CURRENT since then and I don't want to update everything on these > servers just yet. Looking at the new source, I'm not sure it will stop this adaptor gobbling port 623. It's a 82546EB, e1000_82546_rev_3 e1000_mac_type. In em_init_manageability(), it looks like it's only disabled for e1000_mac_type >= e1000_82571 which excludes this adaptor: /* enable receiving management packets to the host */ if (adapter->hw.mac.type >= e1000_82571) { manc |= E1000_MANC_EN_MNG2HOST; #define E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_623 (1 << 5) #define E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_664 (1 << 6) manc2h |= E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_623; manc2h |= E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_664; E1000_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, E1000_MANC2H, manc2h); } I'll give the driver a whirl anyway. If it doesn't, is it safe to write 'manc |= E1000_MANC_EN_MNG2HOST' for adapter->hw.mac.type >= e1000_82546? Ian -- Ian Freislich