Skip to contentSkip to conversation

dpdk-dumpcap not allowed to do multiple invocations on the same interface

DPDK/other Bug 1608 [email protected] 1 participant 2 messages Dec 27, 2024 – Jan 15, 2025

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608

Bug ID: 1608
Summary: dpdk-dumpcap not allowed to do multiple invocations
on the same interface
Product: DPDK
Version: 23.11
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: Normal
Component: other
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Target Milestone: ---

In practical use, many scenarios may require distinguishing between inbound and outbound traffic based on matching rules, which would necessitate calling dpdk-dumpcap twice on the same interface. However, it seems that this is not supported at the moment. Additionally, even when using the --file-prefix option, the same limitation applies.

The first invocation:
[root@xgw-dpdk /]# /dpdk/app/dpdk-dumpcap -i 0000:21:00.0
File: /tmp/dpdk-dumpcap_0_0000:21:00.0_20241227024137.pcapng Capturing on '0000:21:00.0'
Packets captured: 108 ^C

The second invocation:
[root@xgw-dpdk /]# /dpdk/app/dpdk-dumpcap -i 0000:21:00.0
File: /tmp/dpdk-dumpcap_0_0000:21:00.0_20241227024149.pcapng pdump_prepare_client_request(): client request for pdump enable/disable failed
EAL: Error - exiting with code: 1
Cause: Packet dump enable on 0:0000:21:00.0 failed File exists

Signature · 2 lines
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
#1 lore raw

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608

Kevin Traynor ([email protected]) changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 CC|                            |[email protected]
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #2 from Kevin Traynor ([email protected]) --- Hi Jun.

Thanks for feedback on this. Stephen says this is not trivial as it would mean API changes and as far as I'm aware no one is planning to work on this. If it is of interest, you can propose an RFC on the mailing list.

I will mark this as "won't fix" for the time being.

Signature · 2 lines
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.