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 2857FA0A00; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 13:55:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4682B8E; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 13:55:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7692B83 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 13:55:33 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1609332932; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UhzipO8Oo+hdf8CiwT6hs5dI+Hitza0+2cg85SUKHI8=; b=KGU7YkGo8vWTsMg8tv+UodqrMsPO2zaieRFIPkr4nLArSDK9I9g4e4iL22yQyWmatehDWq iAYDym1LdhtO9/YlGzHKW2q6MYhklBSOKEhx62KJyIqOzfMy6yh6zVdI+TaCySpQ4qavAx mJF51qPEat5geF6nMxJQIK0JpVTuf94= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-434-RcgMTBBvN8qvg6ywNQsTQQ-1; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:55:30 -0500 X-MC-Unique: RcgMTBBvN8qvg6ywNQsTQQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF67A18C89C4; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 12:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-112-200.ams2.redhat.com (ovpn-112-200.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.200]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1426A251; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 12:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <20b494692d1b54d1a83f519759584662371073c8.camel@redhat.com> From: Balazs Nemeth To: Devendra Singh Rawat , Igor Russkikh , "dev@dpdk.org" , Rasesh Mody Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 13:55:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <8a90fc3e-31dd-2792-0dee-7c86523f2245@marvell.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-1.fc32) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=bnemeth@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Potential regression introduced by commit b10231aed1edb9 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" Hi, I already posted a patch that fixes the issue on my side here: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-December/195206.html Regards, Balazs On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 12:51 +0000, Devendra Singh Rawat wrote: > Adding more people to comment/investigate here. > > Devendra, could it be that we don't consider subsequent calls of > promisc_enabled + allmulti_enable ? > > Devendra >> yes, I agree that as long as promiscuous mode is enabled > for a port, all traffic should be accepted even if allmulticast is > enabled latter. Commit b10231aed1edb9 shouldn't have changed that. > I will prepare a fix patch for this. > > On 18/12/2020 2:34 pm, Balazs Nemeth wrote: > > Hi, > > > > introduces a regression on my systems. I have a > > "QLogic Corp. FastLinQ QL41000 Series 10/25/40/50GbE Controller" > > which > > relies on the qede driver. Calling > > rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(portid) > > followed by rte_eth_allmulticast_enable(port_id) causes no packets > > to > > arrive from my generator. It's important to add that the generator > > doesn't specifically target the mac of the port. I presume that > > irrespective of dst mac, if a port is put into promiscuous mode, > > all > > packets should arrive and rte_eth_allmulticast_enable should not > > cause > > *less* packets to arrive. Am I missing something? It seems that > > b10231aed1edb9 inadvertently introduced either a bug or a pretty > > significant change in semantics (at least for qede)? > > > > Regards, > > Balazs > >