Re: IFF_PROMISC again

2007-05-28 Thread Martín Ferrari
Stephen, On 5/28/07, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great that you point it out. Then, we're back to the initial > situation, there is no reliable way of polling promisc state, and I am > looking for a way to do that. Ways I think it could be done: Back to the original question

Re: IFF_PROMISC again

2007-05-27 Thread Martín Ferrari
Stephen, I think your mail didn't make it to netdev. Majordomo seems to be working badly with special charsets (my mails used to be totally ignored because of charset and/or encoding issues). On 5/27/07, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow, I searched for this a lot! It could be

Re: IFF_PROMISC again

2007-05-25 Thread Martín Ferrari
Hi David, On 5/22/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag > in dev_get_flags() ? Because promiscuous status is a counter, not a binary on-off state. You can't expect to just clear it and expect all the other promiscuous users to

Re: IFF_PROMISC again

2007-05-25 Thread Martín Ferrari
Hi Ben, On 5/22/07, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PACKET_(ADD|REMOVE)_MEMBERSHIP, I need to query the real device state. I have the same problem. I think you can tell by looking at bit 0x100 in /sys/class/net/[ethX]/flags Not exactly fun to use, but it seems to work. Wow, I sea

Re: IFF_PROMISC again

2007-05-22 Thread Ben Greear
David Miller wrote: From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:08:18 -0700 Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag in dev_get_flags() ? Because promiscuous status is a counter, not a binary on-off state. You can't expect to just clear it and expect all

Re: IFF_PROMISC again

2007-05-22 Thread David Miller
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:08:18 -0700 > Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag > in dev_get_flags() ? Because promiscuous status is a counter, not a binary on-off state. You can't expect to just clear it and expect all the other promiscuou

Re: IFF_PROMISC again

2007-05-22 Thread Ben Greear
Martín Ferrari wrote: Hi, for the nth time I send this email, hoping that majordomo won't eat it again. I know this has been extensibly discussed circa 2001, but I found that there's still problems: in debian (at least) neither ifconfig nor ip can tell that the interface is in promiscuous mode.