Re: em0 hijacking traffic to port 623

On 5/21/07, Ian FREISLICH <ianf_at_clue.co.za> wrote:
> Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > "Jack Vogel" wrote:
> > > On 5/21/07, Sten Spans <sten_at_blinkenlights.nl> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > > > > I've looked at the bios, but I can't find any settings that remotely
> > > > > hint IPMI or RMCP+ or serial-over-lan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know how I can stop the card or system from stealing
> > > > > port 623 in hardware or must I just stop using em0 (and/or Intel NICS)?
> > > >
> > > > Does "ifconfig em0 promisc" help ?
> > > > That fixed firmware related vanishing ipv6 packets on fxp and em.
> > >
> > > Is this happening even with the latest CURRENT driver,  there is code in
> > > it now that is supposed to stop the firmware from doing that, at least
> > > that was the theory :)
> >
> > No, it's a March 6 current.  How safe is it to just update the
> > sys/dev/em directory and recompile?  Quite a lot has changed in
> > CURRENT since then and I don't want to update everything on these
> > servers just yet.
>
> Looking at the new source, I'm not sure it will stop this adaptor
> gobbling port 623.  It's a 82546EB, e1000_82546_rev_3 e1000_mac_type.
> In em_init_manageability(), it looks like it's only disabled for
> e1000_mac_type >= e1000_82571 which excludes this adaptor:
>
>                 /* enable receiving management packets to the host */
>                 if (adapter->hw.mac.type >= e1000_82571) {
>                         manc |= E1000_MANC_EN_MNG2HOST;
> #define E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_623 (1 << 5)
> #define E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_664 (1 << 6)
>                         manc2h |= E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_623;
>                         manc2h |= E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_664;
>                         E1000_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, E1000_MANC2H, manc2h);
>                 }
>
> I'll give the driver a whirl anyway.  If it doesn't, is it safe to write
> 'manc |= E1000_MANC_EN_MNG2HOST' for adapter->hw.mac.type >= e1000_82546?

It may be that register doesnt exist on the earlier adapter, I'm not sure.
There is also a system configuration to avoid that port use by the port
mapper, although the exact way slips my mind right now.
If you can test that would be useful.

Jack