| To: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug? |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:44:17 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3C6A96F8.40303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20020213.001736.03366378.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3C6A2789.5DCC1C8F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3C6A96F8.40303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:40:24 -0700
So, what is the preferred way of making something promisc/not-promisc
if we are not to use SIOCSIFFLAGS?
Use packet socket, and use the PACKET_{ADD,DROP}_MEMBERSHIP socket
options. Pass in a "struct packet_mclist *ptr" whose ptr->type
is PACKET_MR_PROMISC.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Locking requirements for tcp_v4_do_rcv, Michal Ostrowski |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | some questions about TCP/IP stack source codes in Linux Kernel 2.4.2, Laurence |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |