Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] [Request For Comments] perfSonar Toolkits Docker container

Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

List archive

Re: [perfsonar-user] [Request For Comments] perfSonar Toolkits Docker container


Chronological Thread 
    < Chronological >      < Thread >
  • From: Victor Orlikowski <>
  • To: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] [Request For Comments] perfSonar Toolkits Docker container
  • Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:23:58 +0000
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=duke.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=duke.edu; dkim=pass header.d=duke.edu; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=kLBFm4Du48EOhenWmzcYS06qeY5n0qMZLlTz1YH/EKQ=; b=VDOovx+YXBCkEnR8skhAnkMNCm7K0siShXkqagtYDi/4azZ18fsn8xnJbAUxEkh2GQ+nUkbrNUJQDXZDy8gPpf4YHJMklyHivC15vH4e6n+erxV/m+CzRu7+Wj3Q6QOpiXz1/JxsJ5QZ2UYymof8TrcBfszeUjEG51MOcpKeOPuKS9wBsgu8lXzxSE5milxMCQEzr4MYENfK4SWq+/GxjAsrx4snAiHBlSscyC6ewd0NFzwVbaVq09JPoqDtyahX8QJHb0qoFSN4RGS/omydULEgehU2DeYC2nbc4Phxe7yF3wutcRaB6tWNat3gmjMR7pFHPf5wwD3wWnEWDTvubg==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XjQRT2EqEKEtfe3x159FX2hZ6Vp9rK1Fw4vSjhveIRyo4woAXg0KoIX4c6LsNEWHMnYgq9WqvI2zku9WYWORpXSFAHtcMZ6UlCzryW6SXfX9GD/vR2CT6Ngtrk+rYXPiQY7K41S5DtE8/C7p5B0GJS1T9H/fTqoMzzI///hgYpDeaemGfDTw4+tODMPE7T3euqg14AsExwcnS4P5Lm/GyNqo8Niod9sKTWvpVmFVjr/AMnIXsoMf0mj05RqzBI/p0sSx8aXlGqZVTKUwfTpANEKz1KslaF/asopaS4PFM1QhwFHeNN1+3+/861aatMPvkLTWE6VCI/8tcSLg7LRiGg==
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, at 09:09 AM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote:
> That's where the SR-IOV virtual interfaces come in.
>

Following up to my own post, with something I just noticed (that
resulted in a question)...

Which one of the tools in perfSonar tries to put interfaces into
promiscuous mode (however briefly)?

Reason I ask, is the following set of messages in dmesg:

[366732.748661] device enp2s10 entered promiscuous mode
[366732.752673] i40evf 0000:02:0a.0: Entering promiscuous mode
[366732.752677] i40evf 0000:02:0a.0: Entering multicast promiscuous mode
[366732.752752] i40e 0000:01:00.1: Unprivileged VF 0 is attempting to
configure promiscuous mode
[366984.644797] device enp2s10 left promiscuous mode
[366984.644905] i40evf 0000:02:0a.0: Leaving promiscuous mode
[366984.644965] i40e 0000:01:00.1: Unprivileged VF 0 is attempting to
configure promiscuous mode

Now - I'm not too concerned about that, given that the Linux kernel
appears to "lie" to the process that requested promiscuous mode, per
this patch:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/618189/

But - it's interesting to note that something was grabbing for it...

Victor
--
Victor J. Orlikowski <> vjo@(ee.|cs.)?duke.edu

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page