4 Replies Latest reply on Sep 6, 2016 4:24 PM by Holleman

    82599 VF in promiscuous mode

    Holleman
    Holleman Feb 29, 2016 7:00 PM

      I am trying to run a bridge inside a VM and would like the VF interface to be in promiscuous mode so that it can receive packets for any unicast MAC address.  I am currently unable to get this to work and have found some interesting threads about promiscuous mode not working in a VF.  Mainly these:

       

      Intel i350: promiscuous mode and SR-IOV

      promisc function does not work with VF in XL710 Network card

       

      However this thread talks about setting all ones in the UTA in order to enable promiscuous mode:

       

      ixgbe 3.21.2 driver for 82599

       

      So some questions - is this supported?  Seems there is a bit of conflicting information out there.  Even if not by the published driver, is it supported by the hardware?  The driver companion guide doesn't really have enough information about how to make this work or explain why or where the all 1s thing would work.  I have tried and have not been able to get it to work.  I'd be curious to understand what the performance implication is.

       

      I have the ability to peek/poke registers and manipulate the driver if need be.  I can upgrade if need be but I've looked at the differences in the drivers around this area and can't see anything different enough to warrant upgrading.

      • 808 Views
      • Tags:
        • 1. Re: 82599 VF in promiscuous mode
          Holleman
          Holleman Feb 29, 2016 7:14 PM (in response to Holleman)

          By the way, I meant to put the driver versions in that I'm using now but I'm not sure how much it matters.

           

          (dock)root@localhost:~# ethtool -i net0 

          driver: ixgbe

          version: 3.19.1-k

          firmware-version: 0x800004e3

          bus-info: 0000:81:00.0

          supports-statistics: yes

          supports-test: yes

          supports-eeprom-access: yes

          supports-register-dump: yes

          supports-priv-flags: no

          (dock)root@localhost:~# uname -a

          Linux localhost 3.14.51-grsec-dock #1 SMP Tue Feb 23 03:12:31 PST 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux

          (dock)root@localhost:~#

           

          And in the VF:

           

          root@sp-ub1404-s:~# ethtool -i eth0

          driver: ixgbevf

          version: 2.12.1-k

          firmware-version:

          bus-info: 0000:00:04.0

          supports-statistics: yes

          supports-test: yes

          supports-eeprom-access: no

          supports-register-dump: yes

          supports-priv-flags: no

          root@sp-ub1404-s:~#

          • 2. Re: 82599 VF in promiscuous mode
            wb_Intel
            wb_Intel Mar 1, 2016 6:33 PM (in response to Holleman)

            Hi Holleman,

             

              Let me verify this.

             

            rgds,

            wb

            • 3. Re: 82599 VF in promiscuous mode
              BharathPaulraj
              BharathPaulraj Mar 27, 2016 10:52 PM (in response to Holleman)

              Hi Holleman,

               

              VF promiscuous mode is not supported in Intel 82599. This is a hardware limitation.

              Similar mail thread is there in the link [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF

              You can get more idea on visiting the link.

               

              Thanks,

              Bharath Paulraj

              1 of 1 people found this helpful
              • 4. Re: 82599 VF in promiscuous mode
                Holleman
                Holleman Sep 6, 2016 4:24 PM (in response to BharathPaulraj)

                Thanks for the info - never heard back from the link didn't work directly but was able to search and find it.  I looks like the thread ended with Greg suggesting a somewhat complicated workaround - did you ever get that to work or give up and move on?

                 

                Also, did you ever try out the X710 or XL710 to verify that the functionality you were asking for is really there?  It wasn't clear that desire to have it in promiscuous mode for only a single VLAN would be there or it would be for all VLANs?