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 427B2A0350; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D311D9EF; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F2F1D9EF; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:03:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5487458019D; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:03:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= hjEJv20jOSP9PPjGTPS5teoHAH7eB7HQ1/eNF6N8Me4=; b=XkAUzPf9T2HhlxW5 lvM0XcojAouRanUn+WcrS34B/CkAjCCTsi/2PaYIt6+7xcRud6EesQ4EEtZ9Br+I 7UZ/tZTj1U0nVnd1S/1Dl0ihUvBCNjh+aajjSIz+0BPXwLX5f728J6bHln7aQgCs Ag1Bjdoiqtn7FUHRVwCtw3tmlf7fL9CKEge7RJwLPp0cCE7BNUqqiCIabk9NYuar i1H+Pb96zysUgj/uFvzoL3WlzwlG7ElpVsQkAF8Pv06zhL26ny57KJ8SWNZB3wwj /pu6g9lqyvkdplDslFHWVobA0e0bjk915ZEdKByqKSy3luxtjtGpgUmxwNCrLRg6 HtpmJw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=hjEJv20jOSP9PPjGTPS5teoHAH7eB7HQ1/eNF6N8M e4=; b=uAjj9WU29nsu2ZNt0aB4vSpvUCMJbmnaPrRcN0DYAgfhuT+vdDGcbqsNX gYCAZtTaRw8hd5drM4lIzSUzoDtieJbWJoSr8znzFOUhO0CvxNpPfsj1eZXSOG1I 4Ap8WVT8n8RUmSAUeeOlgn3aJT/MYNvj4Z03ZoPVYfGbLC1tQECbQ+WbZnaxg1WM m1HWYrecpCmG8B6y2lQ+MhuA9HaJvGzDq6aQhAsEEi34bhueSPTwTVEkDoj06vKT tNtvU2zQzYH6cVH3LmbzZ26N1gaslo1Nz7lzt53ID9aRbRwi0UtJF3pyOvxHF8jO hkzbZ7jgVjIbguvyKblZ8aInKfYLg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudekjedgudeflecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffvdffjeeuteelfeeileduudeugfetjeelveefkeejfeeigeeh teffvdekfeegudenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefge drvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhl fhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9B5AB328005A; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:03:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Liu Cc: dev@dpdk.org, 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 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:03:44 +0200 Message-ID: <4869615.bvJKNRufO7@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" 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? > 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. > 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