On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 09:15:50 -0400 Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Sébastien, > > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:03 AM, sebastien dugue > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:09:19 -0400 > > Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> There appear to be two basic approaches to supporting DHCP (over > >> InfiniBand) in Linux. There's LPF support (4.1.1 based) and older > >> (3.0.4 based) socket support. > >> > >> The 4.1.1 LPF patches are: > >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ewg/2010-May/015265.html > >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ewg/2010-May/015266.html > >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ewg/2010-May/015264.html > >> The last being Matthieu Hautreux's <matthieu.hautreux at cea.fr> > >> improved XID generation (same as > >> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/htdig/dhcp-hackers/2009-January/001773.html). > >> > >> AFAIT an LPF based approach will only work on older kernels (due to > >> elimination of CONFIG_FILTER support). Is this accurate ? > > > > Where have you seen that the LPF approach does not work on recent kernels? > > AFAICR, the CONFIG_FILTER disappeared a long time ago. Unless I'm missing > > something, you only need the CONFIG_PACKET option. > > The question was based on the README and some code in lpf.c but it > sounds those comments relating to CONFIG_FILTER relate to 2.4 and not > to 2.6 based kernels then. All that is needed with a 2.6 kernel is > CONFIG_PACKET so the PF_PACKET socket can be created and used by lpf. > Right ? Absolutely right. > > Out of curiousity, why did you choose a PF_PACKET rather than a UDP > socket based approach ? The UDP socket approach seems simpler but > maybe has some other pitfalls. For unknown reasons which I did not have time to investigate at the time, I could not make it work using a plain UDP socket which I agree should be straightforward. So I did it the LPF way. Sébastien. > > Thanks again. > > -- Hal > > > Sébastien. > > > > > >> > >> OFED has two patches for 3.0.4 for a socket approach in > >> http://www.openfabrics.org/git/?p=~tziporet/docs.git;a=tree;f=dhcp;h=aec68a2905559c8ed91f1157fa11d78cccb266cd;hb=ofed_1_5 > >> dhcp-3.0.4.patch > >> 0001-Make-DHCP-server-print-HW-info.patch > >> > >> I've been upporting those to a 4.x based DHCP and have a fundamental > >> question which occurs even with the 3.0.4 socket based version. On the > >> client machine, the DHCPOFFER in response to the DHCPDISCOVER is > >> received (seen with tcpdump) but never seems to make it to the > >> dhclient application. I can't see any kernel stack error counters > >> incremented so I'm mystified as to what could be going wrong. I've > >> also tried this on a number of different kernels. Any idea on why this > >> might be or how to figure out where that packet is going ? I do see > >> the dhcp client port with netstat -a --udp -n > >> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:68 0.0.0.0:* > >> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:68 0.0.0.0:* > >> Any idea on what I'm missing ? > >> > >> Also, is any of this work making it's way into a released DHCP ? > >> What's the process for this ? Is there some branch in a source > >> repository where this work is available ? > >> > >> Thanks in advance for any pointers on all this. > >> > >> -- Hal > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ewg mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg > >> > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
