[DPDK/other Bug 1608] dpdk-dumpcap not allowed to do multiple invocations on the same interface

[DPDK/other Bug 1608] dpdk-dumpcap not allowed to do multiple invocations on the same interface

[bugzilla]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1470 bytes --]

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608

            Bug ID: 1608
           Summary: dpdk-dumpcap  not allowed to do multiple invocations
                    on the same interface
           Product: DPDK
           Version: 23.11
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: Normal
         Component: other
          Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
          Reporter: junwang01@cestc.cn
  Target Milestone: ---

In practical use, many scenarios may require distinguishing between inbound and
outbound traffic based on matching rules, which would necessitate calling
dpdk-dumpcap twice on the same interface. However, it seems that this is not
supported at the moment. Additionally, even when using the --file-prefix
option, the same limitation applies.


The first invocation：
[root@xgw-dpdk /]# /dpdk/app/dpdk-dumpcap -i 0000:21:00.0 
File: /tmp/dpdk-dumpcap_0_0000:21:00.0_20241227024137.pcapng
Capturing on '0000:21:00.0'
Packets captured: 108 ^C

The second invocation：
[root@xgw-dpdk /]# /dpdk/app/dpdk-dumpcap -i 0000:21:00.0 
File: /tmp/dpdk-dumpcap_0_0000:21:00.0_20241227024149.pcapng
pdump_prepare_client_request(): client request for pdump enable/disable failed
EAL: Error - exiting with code: 1
  Cause: Packet dump enable on 0:0000:21:00.0 failed File exists

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3358 bytes --]

[DPDK/other Bug 1608] dpdk-dumpcap not allowed to do multiple invocations on the same interface

[bugzilla]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608

Kevin Traynor (ktraynor@redhat.com) changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ktraynor@redhat.com
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #2 from Kevin Traynor (ktraynor@redhat.com) ---
Hi Jun.

Thanks for feedback on this. Stephen says this is not trivial as it would mean
API changes and as far as I'm aware no one is planning to work on this. If it
is of interest, you can propose an RFC on the mailing list.

I will mark this as "won't fix" for the time being.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3062 bytes --]