From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AE0A0350; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:58:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E865A1BED2; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:58:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f181.google.com (mail-lj1-f181.google.com [209.85.208.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1901BEB3 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:58:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f181.google.com with SMTP id n23so19684881ljh.7 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0bEDK539P0R+j3YMN/S0TKbIl8QfBTS6cGg9n8QIJNk=; b=K7cLs6QAD65lS6zFoB6Fj04vljhRIh/mhdh+ahihvuTkt6j0o5EASCv1lPF4OED5QU 0B2DT39kl3YLgYVphg+h32TEA17mMIsP1JRv5Th6XL/8MnBc7cBYTIXGSqwYK0Rioh/X YoMmbaz0ox3sv3/BXeedrM4cAvjJu43s5sRus= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0bEDK539P0R+j3YMN/S0TKbIl8QfBTS6cGg9n8QIJNk=; b=adrkcmgsFcgGz2U5KeNndnSrNyG5wDrjVltu1XA9RZ00a841ny1Xbz2Ycgd3Ylrkfu rOhbWWkYZpFbrIujaj5HwTmMqLHwgX7KNc9Upt04dU9v+GPRyNWl/LLqZP3CdMsrnOTB NLEzDCaF3nI5vBe8A7HnmuooovMPJt+mhG7uZWnnmk+EtOdFLN3Lj4//H8a1jRr0k4v2 JWUDBSaCjYxtEMjsEQ6G7YQYRQ//0vki6AXVOnMIQO7L5Oc2y9X2AELqdWK3FOhkwpIE s+iMt00fiHn/LeN5NmsTUkpDxpNvb6qg+S8xHpFMmehZYJgYc6H2HR4BO9s3RKIJg44J dEhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LZklBBSy79n46uqojTiRysiCcRryK/gDvyZTr5FidSd9w1Y3m mUlUpvXzf4HBW/BWZMTr9gh9Jo7Raw8aWd2oL4z21w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPyWTvO7AH/hCfun01ZIudTeszgdjWghi7GwvGGR2rMd+bl8FTMUGMtQp0CM0RHQ/Y/98baEuppaNr2tB/1eU= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e88:: with SMTP id f8mr8519538ljk.193.1593460719003; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4869615.bvJKNRufO7@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: David Liu Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:58:02 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ajit Khaparde Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dpdk-dev , dts@dpdk.org, Lincoln Lavoie , David Marchand , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Ori Kam , Ciara Power , Ivan Ilchenko , Hemant Agrawal , Stephen Hemminger , Raslan Darawsheh , j.hendergart@f5.com, grive@u256.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Promiscuous Mode Feature X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:23 PM Ajit Khaparde wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Thomas Monjalon > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> A bit of context: David is going to implement a test in DTS >> for promiscuous mode: >> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/features.html#promiscuous-mode >> >> 24/06/2020 18:18, David Liu: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > From my understanding, the promiscuous mode feature will verify the >> > functionality of promiscuous mode when it is on or off. >> >> You need to check in which condition the promiscuous mode can be enabled. >> Some contexts may forbid this mode. untrusted VF? flow isolation mode? >> > But there is no way other than some logs to indicate these. > Maybe we should add some state in port info to indicate this? > > From what I know, I not sure if that is possible to add these states into the test case? But let me know what you think. > >> > The plan for testing this feature is as follows: >> > >> > Sending over a packet to verify the ports are working properly before >> any >> > testing. First to verify the promiscuous mode is enabled. With the >> > promiscuous being enabled, send over a packet and check if the packet >> will >> > be received when sending it to a different destination mac address than >> the >> > host/card. Then disable the promiscuous mode. The packet will only be >> > received if the mac address is the destination mac address. Otherwise, >> the >> > test case will be considered a failure. >> >> I assume you will test positive and negative in both on/off cases. >> >> Yes, in the test case. It covered sending a packet with same/different destination mac address when promiscuous is on/off. > Please let me know if there is anything I need to add on or if there are >> > certain cases I need to be aware of. >> >> Anyone else has ideas about what to test and corner cases? >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > David Liu >> > UNH Interoperability Lab >> >> >>