> > But what happens if you write a program which does whatever ioctl is
> > required to unpromiscify an interface and run it on an unpromiscuous
> > interface, does it print a message to syslog even though promiscuous
> > mode was never enabled in the first place?
>
> Like I said, I seem to get t
> > But what happens if you write a program which does whatever ioctl is
> > required to unpromiscify an interface and run it on an unpromiscuous
> > interface, does it print a message to syslog even though promiscuous
> > mode was never enabled in the first place?
>
> Like I said, I seem to get
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:20:35 GMT, Niall Smart wrote:
> But what happens if you write a program which does whatever ioctl is
> required to unpromiscify an interface and run it on an unpromiscuous
> interface, does it print a message to syslog even though promiscuous
> mode was never enabled in th
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:29:47 GMT, Niall Smart wrote:
>
> > Or is the test for IFF_PROMISC made earlier in the code? You
> > should only print a disabled message when it has previously
> > been enabled so that log file watchers can always match up
> > the up/down pairs.
>
> > if (--ifp->if_pcount > 0)
> > return (0);
> > ifp->if_flags &= ~IFF_PROMISC;
> > --->log(LOG_INFO, "%s%d: promiscuous mode disabled\n",
> > --->ifp->if_name, ifp->if_unit);
>
> Shouldn't this be:
>
> i
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:29:47 GMT, Niall Smart wrote:
> Or is the test for IFF_PROMISC made earlier in the code? You
> should only print a disabled message when it has previously
> been enabled so that log file watchers can always match up
> the up/down pairs.
I've been using if.c modified exac
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:20:35 GMT, Niall Smart wrote:
> But what happens if you write a program which does whatever ioctl is
> required to unpromiscify an interface and run it on an unpromiscuous
> interface, does it print a message to syslog even though promiscuous
> mode was never enabled in t
> -- snip --
> if (pswitch) {
> /*
> * If the device is not configured up, we cannot put it
> in
> * promiscuous mode.
> */
> if ((ifp->if_flags & IFF_UP) == 0)
> return (ENETDOWN);
>
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:29:47 GMT, Niall Smart wrote:
>
> > Or is the test for IFF_PROMISC made earlier in the code? You
> > should only print a disabled message when it has previously
> > been enabled so that log file watchers can always match up
> > the up/down pairs.
> > if (--ifp->if_pcount > 0)
> > return (0);
> > ifp->if_flags &= ~IFF_PROMISC;
> > --->log(LOG_INFO, "%s%d: promiscuous mode disabled\n",
> > --->ifp->if_name, ifp->if_unit);
>
> Shouldn't this be:
>
>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:29:47 GMT, Niall Smart wrote:
> Or is the test for IFF_PROMISC made earlier in the code? You
> should only print a disabled message when it has previously
> been enabled so that log file watchers can always match up
> the up/down pairs.
I've been using if.c modified exa
> -- snip --
> if (pswitch) {
> /*
> * If the device is not configured up, we cannot put it
> in
> * promiscuous mode.
> */
> if ((ifp->if_flags & IFF_UP) == 0)
> return (ENETDOWN);
>
> > > when a network interface is put into promiscuous mode, a kernel
> > > message is logged ie. "ep0: promiscuous mode enabled" are there plans
> > > to log the reverse of this message ie. "ep0: promiscuous mode
> > > disabled"..I think this was suggested before in the mailing-lists but
> > > did
> > > when a network interface is put into promiscuous mode, a kernel
> > > message is logged ie. "ep0: promiscuous mode enabled" are there plans
> > > to log the reverse of this message ie. "ep0: promiscuous mode
> > > disabled"..I think this was suggested before in the mailing-lists but
> > > di
14 matches
Mail list logo
