From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com (mail-qk0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C8710A3 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:43:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qk0-f182.google.com with SMTP id z78-v6so7717276qka.0 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 07:43:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ejKrNTm8unJo3RoRTwmj5NtKb9zDfEm8SrBxrr6Wn1w=; b=jEy0G6lJ/dlsetBq1pNYwQsRm4FCOe9ViULsUzCUJCrq7sM6GjdTqnn2sDcXr0kf06 Rf9L9xfVlpiWarSib51dTAQQKXPvYQlRFFcEzXbSn3N40yeTDTNhkbtUZdcmkrTKSCSX 8y9osJF8Pk2U7WUWLVuv7G3wmukCs3LafoXY/UDpEqxlqv5deh6ifB/52jTZBkL/SuCs 09gjlAa+vHdkHTGGdbtyaQ0RR0FL+3rnILf4Qq0hVhSkwg9/I/OBqCB8HZdECyZczbTL ceYERaN1h4ZH2E/l5iJbDalLtcVxGSBpKGEa87qGwqnV+GAf5EaNUvLs4KurnIUWQq3j 5ylw== 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=ejKrNTm8unJo3RoRTwmj5NtKb9zDfEm8SrBxrr6Wn1w=; b=cF0txc3FkTl1AuWx+KsPhWzfkUhvqM50u5e8oUIeKxsKajgpcDw68EvRtO/eCQOIy6 Ne2TkHtgcFLvQAPfs7mwZ+i9JjZHgkw39VO575+m0uQyeMtcJ08eqNya9hC7X4hO+s+P bcT/q3qhLBCFjyP5/6mhRRz0nOmZFeUjco3UgEKPyVp9WCUQbwdqE/d2T62yRbl1OI9Z eGl3VDSGu1MkNx830ZVj/E3lxUqC9HUCu4UWW/RO0Q571dk1U4zCv9oS5V1ADes7L/4G rsIfwXs+4J41yaEBOeFZcv2qm9r8K/t5wFidbtB59/3laKqRKs9A8er9IwKwZzVQ/Vxs hPqA== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51At1ftZjCfAVATvswjbcLqJZZqxO56BEVxZ/hwXiOaFlOXbx/H0 u/y2GzqK0qkvnCfg1z0vMC6n1HFLIm3/o5/c3es= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdb7XT4mDxXWWxETn3NW5Iug4NAs6ST+IG6K1jLqbEVCviz+gwbua3jIGKFIbr4Qpi0NxicZRdt86X+TCkdVyZA= X-Received: by 2002:a37:9d0c:: with SMTP id g12-v6mr6225404qke.230.1535208230008; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 07:43:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Andrew Wang Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:43:39 -0400 Message-ID: To: roszenrami@gmail.com Cc: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] AF_PACKET pmd and linux networking stack X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 14:43:50 -0000 Rami Thank you for the suggestion. Later I found it was a problem with the dpdk app (setting incorrect mac address). Andrew On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 5:15 PM Rami Rosen wrote: > Hi Andrew, > I am not sure at all that there is a way of achieving it, because of the > way AF_PACKET works. > But couldn't you achieve your goal with running DPDK L2FWD or DPDK L3FWD > application ? In such a case, when not working in promiscuous mode, it > seems that this will avoid processing of the packets by the kernel. See t= he > l2fwd and l3fwd sections in DPDK samples guide. > > Regards, > Rami Rosen > > > > =D7=91=D7=AA=D7=90=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9A =D7=99=D7=95=D7=9D =D7=93=D7=B3, 8 = =D7=91=D7=90=D7=95=D7=92=D7=B3 2018, 19:57, =D7=9E=D7=90=D7=AA Andrew Wang = =E2=80=8F >: > >> Hi >> >> Is there a way of preventing the linux kernel networking stack from >> handling packets when using the AF_PACKET pmd? >> >> Our DPDK app is running on a node that is attracting traffic for a VIP a= nd >> for which it has a blackhole routing rule (to drop all the incoming >> packets >> for that VIP). >> >> The intention was to have our DPDK app (running on AF_PACKET pmd for now= - >> we're still developing the app) grab those packets, process and send the= m >> out (with a different address). >> >> Right now we can actually see those packets in our dpdk app, we process >> them, give them a different address, but it seems that the linux kernel >> networking stack is still dropping them. >> >> When the blackhole rule is removed we see the outgoing packet with corre= ct >> header, but also a destination unreachable message is sent out, suggesti= ng >> the kernel is also handling the packet. We see the same behavior when >> using >> iptables to drop packets (instead of blackhole route). >> >> Any suggestions appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> Andrew >> >