Gergely Madarasz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 02:41:34PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > >>Gergely Madarasz wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:40:57PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Gergely Madarasz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:04:55AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Strange. My concern was that the tg3 interface has its hardware reset >>>>>>whenever its set to be up, and part of that is a resetting of its >>>>>>receive mode. If for some reason IFF_PROMISC was cleared after you set >>>>>>it using brctl, the interface might be taken out of promisc mode. Do >>>>>>you have any iptables rules running that might drop bpdus? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No iptables rules az all. Btw iptables wouldn't prevent tcpdump from >>>>>seeing the packets, would it? >>>>>Could it be that the driver perhaps has a problem setting promisc mode >>>>>when resetting the hardware? >>>>> >>>> >>>>Not really sure about this. One experiment is worth a thousand guesses >>>>I suppose....... I'll try and let you know. :) >>> >>> >>>I did some other checks, like adding an explicit ifconfig eth0 promisc, >>>then looking at tcpdump output - I didn't see any stray packets like I >>>usually do, just ethernet broadcasts and unicasts to my mac, this also >>>points to a problem that the ethernet interface is actually not in >>>promisc, while the driver thinks it is. >>> >>>And it is probably not a driver-only issue. I've got older machines with >>>tg3 running fine with bridge (with an older tg3 driver), and eth1 on the >>>same machine also runs fine. On another machine I tested today, an IBM >>>x326, the same thing happens - eth0 broken, eth1 fine. Would access to one >>>of these machines help? :) >>> >>>Greg >> >>I've got a tg3 card here. I'll try re-create it as soon as I have time. > > > Sounds great, but I expect it will not occur with a random tg3 card, > explained above... > Mmmmm....post your lspci -vvv entry for your broken tg3 card? > >> Just out of curiosity, are you running tcpdump against the physical >>interface or the bridged interface? I do recall some issues involving >>using PF_PACKET on virtual interfaces, that might cause you to not see >>some packets that the physical interface really does receive. > > > The physical interface of course. I wouldn't have a chance seeing the > bpdu's on the bridge interface because they're handled by the bridge > driver and not passed on :) > > Greg Just making sure.....When you're car doesn't start, make sure you have gas in it before you replace the engine.... :) Neil -- /*************************************************** *Neil Horman *Software Engineer *Red Hat, Inc. *nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1 *http://pgp.mit.edu ***************************************************/
