On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:13:21PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:07:59PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:58:44AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 05:42:32PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > >> The same is true for PF_PACKET (or does libpcap actually use that
> > > >> internally?). Haven't analyzed the reasons in details yet, but I bet
> > > >> it's not solvable in user space.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jan
> > > >
> > > > I think you can load the veth module, and attach veth to a bridge.
> > >
> > > Sorry, my brain is not yet working at full speed: What do we gain for
> > > the initial problem that we want to bridge to an existing network device
> > > without having to move management tools like dhcpcd to the corresponding
> > > brX?
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Nothing :). I was only saying that IIUC the problem is not with
> > PF_PACKET itself - I think that PF_PACKET + veth can be used
> > as a replacement for tap.
> And the point is...?
tap requires bridging, PF_PACKET can attach to a physical device.