From nobody Mon Sep 20 04:06:12 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E136E17D154C for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:06:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCWFf5z0jz3Ghn for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:06:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA5BD1945 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:06:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18K46EMP064236 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:06:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18K46Ekl064234 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:06:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194453] dummynet(4): pipe config bw parameter limited to 2Gbits/s (signed integer limit) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:06:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: ozkan.kirik@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D194453 Ozkan KIRIK changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ozkan.kirik@gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Ozkan KIRIK --- There is an commit about this subject. I think it's fixed.=20 https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/commit/20ffd88ed54fe3fd098ac30bd2212= 75b2a14f52c#diff-21e8f70f9e33c0576b6fc6942f438cb51afb26aabeb66494549685f5ef= 7e5f3f --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 06:35:02 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC493178E3A9 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 06:35:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCZYL4rqxz4fXZ for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 06:35:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 878FD3ADF for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 06:35:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18K6Z2xE051034 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 06:35:02 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18K6Z2Bw051033 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 06:35:02 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194453] dummynet(4): pipe config bw parameter limited to 2Gbits/s (signed integer limit) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 06:35:02 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: franco@opnsense.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D194453 --- Comment #20 from Franco Fichtner --- Is bumping the limit from 2 to 4 Gbit/s really a solution? Wouldn't it have been better to use a 32 bit approximation using a float type? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 10:24:43 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA3517D6F6E for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:24:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCgfM5Sqpz4hFS for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:24:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9862B6EA1 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:24:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KAOh8f078776 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:24:43 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KAOhdR078775 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:24:43 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] [routing] peformance - 2 numa domains vs signale numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:24:43 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: konrad.kreciwilk@korbank.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version rep_platform op_sys bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter cc Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 Bug ID: 258623 Summary: [routing] peformance - 2 numa domains vs signale numa domain Product: Base System Version: 13.0-STABLE Hardware: amd64 OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Only Me Priority: --- Component: kern Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: konrad.kreciwilk@korbank.pl CC: net@FreeBSD.org Server: Dell R630, 2x CPU E5-2667 v4 - 2 numa domains, 64GB Ram NIC: 2x T62100-SO-CR - each connected to a separate numa domain * 2 numa domain test I use chelsio_affinity to assign irq to correct CPU cfg: ifconfig_cc0=3D"up" ifconfig_cc1=3D"up" ifconfig_cc2=3D"up" ifconfig_cc3=3D"up" #LAGG LACP ifconfig_lagg0=3D"laggproto lacp laggport cc0 laggport cc2 -wol -vlanhwtso = -tso -lro -hwrxtstmp -txtls use_flowid use_numa up" ifconfig_vlan2020=3D"vlan 2020 vlandev lagg0" ifconfig_vlan2002=3D"vlan 2002 vlandev lagg0" +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +------+ | | Router | lagg0 | switch | | gen | | +---------+ +------+ | +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ I can achieve around 14Mpps without drop. Above this level, drops appear on= the ccX/lagg0 interfaces. It looks like a CPU some free resources: # netstat -i -I lagg0 1 input lagg0 output packets errs idrops bytes packets errs bytes colls 15939431 0 555822 2246265134 15381955 0 2167675870 0 16600413 0 612946 2339414686 15978803 0 2253137798 0 15259699 0 575481 2150765886 14693013 0 2070319352 0 15935269 0 512558 2245569909 15382551 0 2167518240 0 16159627 0 616404 2277463695 15563046 0 2195364136 0 14841125 0 322695 1605926868 14540305 0 1562096456 0 # top -PSH last pid: 9745; load averages: 6.46, 2.02, 0.76=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20 up 0+00:02:06 20:25:17 580 threads: 25 running, 471 sleeping, 84 waiting CPU 0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 59.2% interrupt, 40.8% idle CPU 1: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 57.7% interrupt, 42.3% idle CPU 2: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 57.7% interrupt, 42.3% idle CPU 3: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 60.6% interrupt, 39.4% idle CPU 4: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 56.3% interrupt, 43.7% idle CPU 5: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 62.0% interrupt, 38.0% idle CPU 6: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 59.2% interrupt, 40.8% idle CPU 7: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 53.5% interrupt, 46.5% idle CPU 8: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 1.4% system, 62.0% interrupt, 36.6% idle CPU 9: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 67.6% interrupt, 32.4% idle CPU 10: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 69.0% interrupt, 31.0% idle CPU 11: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 66.2% interrupt, 33.8% idle CPU 12: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 63.4% interrupt, 36.6% idle CPU 13: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 62.0% interrupt, 38.0% idle CPU 14: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 63.4% interrupt, 36.6% idle CPU 15: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 63.4% interrupt, 36.6% idle Mem: 536M Active, 29M Inact, 1528M Wired, 60G Free ARC: 114M Total, 22M MFU, 88M MRU, 693K Header, 3231K Other 30M Compressed, 92M Uncompressed, 3.12:1 Ratio Swap: 32G Total, 32G Free PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU8 8 0:37 60.50% intr{irq= 152: t6nex1:0a0} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU10 10 0:36 60.42% intr{irq= 154: t6nex1:0a2} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU11 11 0:36 60.27% intr{irq= 155: t6nex1:0a3} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU14 14 0:36 60.26% intr{irq= 158: t6nex1:0a6} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU12 12 0:36 60.24% intr{irq= 156: t6nex1:0a4} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU9 9 0:36 60.15% intr{irq= 153: t6nex1:0a1} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU13 13 0:36 59.88% intr{irq= 157: t6nex1:0a5} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU15 15 0:36 59.41% intr{irq= 159: t6nex1:0a7} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 0 0:37 58.49% intr{irq= 98: t6nex0:0a0} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 1 0:37 57.89% intr{irq= 99: t6nex0:0a1} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 4 0:37 57.39% intr{irq= 102: t6nex0:0a4} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 5 0:36 57.35% intr{irq= 103: t6nex0:0a5} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 3 0:36 57.32% intr{irq= 101: t6nex0:0a3} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 6 0:36 57.12% intr{irq= 104: t6nex0:0a6} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 2 0:36 56.98% intr{irq= 100: t6nex0:0a2} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K WAIT 7 0:36 56.85% intr{irq= 105: t6nex0:0a7} # pcm-numa.x Time elapsed: 1064 ms Core | IPC | Instructions | Cycles | Local DRAM accesses | Remote DRAM Accesses 0 1.31 4195 M 3203 M 3382 K 48 K 1 1.32 4211 M 3199 M 3241 K 27 K 2 1.33 4238 M 3196 M 3146 K 48 K 3 1.33 4238 M 3197 M 3143 K 26 K 4 1.32 4228 M 3197 M 3241 K 47 K 5 1.33 4243 M 3198 M 3046 K 29 K 6 1.33 4247 M 3195 M 3169 K 47 K 7 1.33 4264 M 3196 M 3180 K 20 K 8 1.29 4159 M 3224 M 2948 K 77 K 9 1.29 4172 M 3224 M 2865 K 92 K 10 1.29 4199 M 3247 M 3263 K 76 K 11 1.30 4237 M 3259 M 2892 K 91 K 12 1.30 4261 M 3274 M 3069 K 73 K 13 1.30 4231 M 3246 M 2959 K 104 K 14 1.30 4291 M 3291 M 3353 K 74 K 15 1.31 4221 M 3227 M 3008 K 85 K pmcstat-S cpu_clk_unhalted.thread flamegraph - https://files.fm/u/enhy23ffr -------------------- * single domain test In this scenario I create vlans on single cc0 (use one numa domian) ifconfig_vlan2020=3D"vlan 2020 vlandev cc0" ifconfig_vlan2002=3D"vlan 2002 vlandev cc0" +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +------+ | | Router | cc0 | switch | | gen | | | | +------+ | +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ Using cc0 I can achieve 16Mpps without drops: # netstat -i -I cc0 1 input cc0 output packets errs idrops bytes packets errs bytes colls 15934346 0 0 2245565269 15933728 0 2245477291 0 15927621 0 0 2244617740 15928235 0 2244704202 0 15934688 0 0 2245613662 15934213 0 2245546449 0 15931155 0 0 2245115588 15931208 0 2245120654 0 15926995 0 0 2244529583 15927391 0 2244585093 0 15931114 0 0 2245109534 15931145 0 2245115823 0 # top -PSH last pid: 9976; load averages: 6.57, 2.51, 1.00=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20 up 0+00:03:23 20:16:17 579 threads: 25 running, 470 sleeping, 84 waiting CPU 0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 95.4% interrupt, 4.6% idle CPU 1: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 95.4% interrupt, 4.6% idle CPU 2: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 94.7% interrupt, 5.3% idle CPU 3: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 93.9% interrupt, 6.1% idle CPU 4: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 94.7% interrupt, 5.3% idle CPU 5: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 94.7% interrupt, 5.3% idle CPU 6: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 94.7% interrupt, 5.3% idle CPU 7: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 93.1% interrupt, 6.9% idle CPU 8: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle CPU 9: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle CPU 10: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle CPU 11: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle CPU 12: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle CPU 13: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle CPU 14: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle CPU 15: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle Mem: 537M Active, 30M Inact, 1260M Wired, 60G Free ARC: 115M Total, 22M MFU, 89M MRU, 695K Header, 3260K Other 30M Compressed, 93M Uncompressed, 3.10:1 Ratio Swap: 32G Total, 32G Free PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU3 3 1:50 94.86% intr{irq= 101: t6nex0:0a3} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU1 1 1:49 94.68% intr{irq= 99: t6nex0:0a1} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU5 5 1:49 94.40% intr{irq= 103: t6nex0:0a5} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU7 7 1:49 94.18% intr{irq= 105: t6nex0:0a7} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU0 0 1:49 94.13% intr{irq= 98: t6nex0:0a0} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU6 6 1:49 94.11% intr{irq= 104: t6nex0:0a6} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU4 4 1:49 93.81% intr{irq= 102: t6nex0:0a4} 12 root -92 - 0B 1472K CPU2 2 1:48 93.56% intr{irq= 100: t6nex0:0a2} # pcm-numa.x Time elapsed: 1002 ms Core | IPC | Instructions | Cycles | Local DRAM accesses | Remote DRAM Accesses 0 1.93 6513 M 3374 M 4179 K 34 K 1 1.93 6516 M 3374 M 4153 K 3655 2 1.94 6518 M 3352 M 4122 K 33 K 3 1.94 6516 M 3367 M 4118 K 8574 4 1.94 6517 M 3361 M 4142 K 37 K 5 1.93 6516 M 3376 M 4147 K 10 K 6 1.93 6515 M 3371 M 4154 K 39 K 7 1.94 6514 M 3360 M 4173 K 12 K 8 0.24 1833 K 7596 K 1805 1378 9 0.20 728 K 3726 K 467 502 10 0.11 312 K 2779 K 227 234 11 0.14 486 K 3407 K 291 361 12 0.12 357 K 2956 K 183 132 13 0.07 195 K 2664 K 46 119 14 0.13 381 K 3047 K 455 212 15 0.23 765 K 3310 K 325 346 --------------------------------------------------------------------- pmcstat-S cpu_clk_unhalted.thread flamegraph - https://files.fm/u/3njfz2r3g * Summary I know, lagg makes a certain amount of overhead but based on my testing a single card performs better than two cards in lagg0 . --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 10:44:16 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94E817DF869 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:44:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCh4w4LzDz4nD9 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:44:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76F2D714C for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:44:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KAiGvi090410 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:44:16 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KAiGRj090409 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:44:16 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:44:16 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: keywords bug_status flagtypes.name cc short_desc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 Kubilay Kocak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |needs-qa, performance Status|New |Open Flags| |maintainer-feedback?(np@Fre | |eBSD.org), | |maintainer-feedback?(jhb@Fr | |eeBSD.org), mfc-stable13? CC| |jhb@FreeBSD.org, | |np@FreeBSD.org Summary|[routing] peformance - 2 |cxgbe(4): Slow routing |numa domains vs signale |performance: 2 numa domains |numa domain |vs single numa domain --- Comment #1 from Kubilay Kocak --- Thank you for the report Konrad. Could you please include the following additional information: - uname -a output - customer kernel configuration if not GENERIC (as an attachment) - /var/run/dmesg.boot output (as an attachment) - /etc/sysctl.conf and /boot/loader.conf configuration (as an attachment,= if not empty) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 10:46:00 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D1817DFF75 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCh6x1v8Tz4nqg for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5EAA7222 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KAk0Vs090833 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:00 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KAk0Ua090832 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:00 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:00 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 --- Comment #2 from Kubilay Kocak --- Created attachment 228044 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D228044&action= =3Dedit lagg0_16Mpps.svg Attach flamegraph from comment 0 --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 10:46:35 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6F712706BA for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCh7b4l8Fz4pK7 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E24A6FFB for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KAkZGK090978 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:35 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KAkZnw090977 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:35 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:46:35 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 --- Comment #3 from Kubilay Kocak --- Created attachment 228045 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D228045&action= =3Dedit single_16Mpps.svg Attach flamegraph (#2) from comment 0 --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 11:22:36 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F2D17C1B85 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:22:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HChx84Drcz3GTs for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:22:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723C07A79 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:22:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KBMasC011272 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:22:36 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KBMaOO011271 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:22:36 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:22:36 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: konrad.kreciwilk@korbank.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 --- Comment #4 from Konrad --- Created attachment 228046 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D228046&action= =3Dedit dmesg.boot --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 11:23:09 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AB917C1FE0 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:23:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HChxn57xqz3H6g for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:23:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CEFA7BD8 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:23:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KBN9V1011424 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:23:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KBN9OX011423 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:23:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:23:09 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: konrad.kreciwilk@korbank.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 --- Comment #5 from Konrad --- Created attachment 228047 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D228047&action= =3Dedit /boot/loader.conf --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 11:24:29 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF84017C2BE9 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:24:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HChzK4y8Mz3J4M for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:24:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A55E7863 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:24:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KBOTq7011647 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:24:29 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KBOTrE011646 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:24:29 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:24:29 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: konrad.kreciwilk@korbank.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 --- Comment #6 from Konrad --- Created attachment 228048 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D228048&action= =3Dedit customer kernel configuration # uname -a FreeBSD Thunder 13.0-STABLE FreeBSD 13.0-STABLE #5 stable/13-6d8f2277d-dirt= y: Wed Sep 15 12:09:27 CEST 2021=20=20=20=20 root@Thunder:/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/ROUTER amd64 --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 12:09:52 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF9E178EB61 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCjzj0Tvgz3lTV for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0A9A1052E for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KC9qMA034971 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:52 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KC9qR8034970 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:52 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:52 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: konrad.kreciwilk@korbank.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 --- Comment #7 from Konrad --- I think is not related with cxgbe directly, I have achieved similar results= on mlx5en(4) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 15:30:34 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78DE17C4E78 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:30:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCpRG46MZz3j33 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:30:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB7D13106 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:30:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KFUY3a046768 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:30:34 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KFUYW9046767 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:30:34 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:30:34 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam: Yes X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258527 --- Comment #14 from Marek Zarychta --- (In reply to Cy Schubert from comment #13) Thank you for the patch. The latest one applies and builds fine. I will be = able to test whether it solves the issue or not within few days and will give feedback here. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 15:53:05 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47FB17CFDB9 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCpxF4gBwz3q74 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 713BA13621 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KFr51r062029 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:53:05 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KFr5iP062028 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:53:05 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:53:05 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258527 --- Comment #15 from Cy Schubert --- (In reply to Marek Zarychta from comment #14) Thank you. Keep me posted. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 19:32:22 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E66F17D8189 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:32:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from driesm.michiels@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCvpK0nD3z4pwg for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:32:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from driesm.michiels@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id g8so65608500edt.7 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:32:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:thread-index :content-language; bh=1io7p12TYmeCEbqn9juGJp6rotGC0CT/5e67LviQfAs=; b=SInUO6C0pN4VROiVtZaes8ITbUpk8zM+PwwWdwNE4B0rDGECPUpm/CLyv8lsrFruBk YWpZoCBB2/U6LVhTXGIu2WpmA9bKzBOxvybJu3qi+w3akqVBpJBMd33+pIFy9VuwdHeD WEWHtRaXE2izFRRCMhoxqGgrr6CWLNseXJoJFuuGMpAwYiPp6KSZZjS/dCsdRvHZ82bS VpuFhNT84+HFrHxYTSxW6fKwQs56dktLKCFN7NicyY5JOrZZ5/m8PqPvUUb2BcwwfIxA dryW+ilDQ41cajTemaXyGMPiMl9KPhNCskeZ2YzZ09vd3LT6dSWhTeS6rh+56Rbjevmm L84g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=1io7p12TYmeCEbqn9juGJp6rotGC0CT/5e67LviQfAs=; b=HDMUMAyZv78GR2UldTu5K/BbNQ3Cyzg+h0cjzhGsK7WcapdHyXMSbAYHN3LPWVZ/7p Wgt2NasH1LS7tzU4R56606gzqOMaTrnQXF5DLdhERPzES8rfEpkdZpc+njLbjjGhJHW2 Ox9bFpp0lrbxvlhtmI3nnzaHWPM245i67oGeCHC8t7Yg4o4Vf0k8g90bUY50CvcoMkqK gCAgL9iCWBBKZE1HdJeo2Q+5zcwhCGKxiZT6mXsQlCB3cYqzjjBHnPOhRVqNbqrD49Mp 9XY+VYLUomFrKhhz9PKPgk+7jNVMEu705n7lOcweK8LfSd4ej6IH7W9kr+k7WLd56G86 J6AA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xC/0vBRtSQ+tDxsGWg5QesjFwXRiJxEKeyNgA5w3PcCSHJo+T 21qE8a2ACkKVwTIl1RzvMp88oOcK0L237A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzoIz+cUB5xQ0zY0wjNbqVnlkcpYqV/ZprszOzk518I5oLDMRgo1dmoyOW85qV+sv9GOaoOSA== X-Received: by 2002:a50:9d8e:: with SMTP id w14mr7882367ede.74.1632166343431; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DRIESPC (ptr-8slu6d4pfqw9wluu5ph.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be. [2a02:1811:251a:d211:bd67:794c:d670:a65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e3sm6490440ejr.118.2021.09.20.12.32.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT) From: To: Subject: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:32:22 +0200 Message-ID: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01D7AE66.FFA946E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdeuVSax95ngB2M8T3qjxUMiWiKs0w== Content-Language: en-be X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HCvpK0nD3z4pwg X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=SInUO6C0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of driesmmichiels@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::535 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=driesmmichiels@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36:c]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20210112]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2a00:1450:4864:20::535:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: Y This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01D7AE66.FFA946E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi net mailing list, Currently at my parrents house we have just a cable modem where I use DHCPv6 and DHCP to get a IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address respectivelly. For this config everything is done in the kernel regarding routing. The ISP is Telenet and they give me 300 down / 20 up (mbps). But I really want a higher upload in my future appartment where I will be moving is *soonTm*. So looking for ISP's in Belgium, Proximus seems to provide a fibre plan (if fibre is available, but it should be) that does 500 down / 50 up (mbps). They use PPPOE and was wondering what the max troughput looks like with the in-base PPPOE client? I have also found some mentions of net/mpd5, is this a better implementation? Thanks Dries ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01D7AE66.FFA946E0-- From nobody Mon Sep 20 19:46:18 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB2617D9986 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:46:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=Gaez=OK=perdition.city=julien@bebif.be) Received: from orval.bbpf.belspo.be (orval.bbpf.belspo.be [193.191.208.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HCw6X6w0Sz4r13 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:46:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=Gaez=OK=perdition.city=julien@bebif.be) Received: from x1 (unknown [77.109.105.148]) by orval.bbpf.belspo.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 179EC1D4FC1A; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:46:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:46:18 +0200 From: Julien Cigar To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20210920194618.niie6o5mwx6getto@x1> Mail-Followup-To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com, freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hxl4k5fndo3k62b5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HCw6X6w0Sz4r13 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --hxl4k5fndo3k62b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 09:32:22PM +0200, driesm.michiels@gmail.com wrote: > Hi net mailing list, Hi Dries, >=20 > =20 >=20 > Currently at my parrents house we have just a cable modem where I use DHC= Pv6 > and DHCP to get a IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address respectivelly. >=20 > For this config everything is done in the kernel regarding routing. The I= SP > is Telenet and they give me 300 down / 20 up (mbps). >=20 > =20 >=20 > But I really want a higher upload in my future appartment where I will be > moving is *soonTm*. >=20 > So looking for ISP's in Belgium, Proximus seems to provide a fibre plan (= if > fibre is available, but it should be) that does 500 down / 50 up (mbps).= =20 >=20 > They use PPPOE and was wondering what the max troughput looks like with t= he > in-base PPPOE client? >=20 On my small APU2C4 box the in-base PPPOE client used 100% CPU, I strongly suggest to switch to mpd5 (which use < 1% CPU on the same hardware) > I have also found some mentions of net/mpd5, is this a better > implementation? >=20 yes! mpd5 is almost mandatory nowadays for PPPOE > =20 >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Dries >=20 --=20 Julien Cigar Belgian Biodiversity Platform (http://www.biodiversity.be) PGP fingerprint: EEF9 F697 4B68 D275 7B11 6A25 B2BB 3710 A204 23C0 No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced. --hxl4k5fndo3k62b5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEnF27CBNtOraRNmgqCLYqJMpBHmkFAmFI5QoACgkQCLYqJMpB Hmkapg/+OYk2oICo9xe2qTZqH9jAYt/+7hxKCcpB6B6z8g5fhr3m6gOVcQKueKbH rLit68X740AXtfvIAZf9gvAIqzmTYy9dYmr7argoOmVJGFQOCMocHuE1o2H9GgyW n+Ir9a3xlxm7xfuIVDODLWE59Qfc0ZlX9tMGTkXjtVrwcXsD+fZHVf3wj2Wjz8SJ 8ZOQG9RZQNbRbp9LdPySfEoItqpifCuvztOmGBy4PfFKCpafaddqr601gj+08KsG z5MuK5fHwRj9O0pKQ8MJPA0LxdQIrjB/yvDmiCVlbx5aKUdpQ5SAZUV25zJOlDTG SrqYOS6QHG07cTDFhdX5vSPPyYDKxOCQW+e+d5LV9lZMGtMLpW2BfIpSUJpBfQ23 QcuU3ZHWjIBZ9E9Iueb/+RiHPnEZIEinjRyhzwm2wZoTqXLat5n4FBJLywGXgkBE bzbEoRBHLTyxzdVPlA2E3AX19Vh+cX+P+sxmMznLLff7dzMJ6CyMQbP9SMlorP9A l1w6He4PE055K62I9bcUXpghKTn6vpMGt70xiUz4dkM9RJ/Z898O4O4vFWd/1DLJ JEOaaI9ytrgiYokhT3IqRgfRl7ExmONJJpuNNMCi30Z4OeMs20Lh3CuoN0o/uHqo gz2sL0/Yj7bdifHS06MSht37/c+aNSYG8f3e0vg1WHNuGLpDR9w= =WnB3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hxl4k5fndo3k62b5-- From nobody Mon Sep 20 21:18:19 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7539C175A105 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:18:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCy8W2pVNz3Fv1 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:18:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DA34174F4 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:18:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KLIJI3051800 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:18:19 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KLIJ3L051799 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:18:19 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:18:19 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_severity Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam: Yes X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258527 Marek Zarychta changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|Affects Some People |Affects Only Me --- Comment #16 from Marek Zarychta --- We should all take it easy, it is a minor breakage and probably no other se= tups except mine are affected. On the other hand, the security/wpa_supplicant fr= om ports still works as intended. The QA process takes some time, the same for debugging and writing patches,= but also taking dumps and testing patches requires some time and effort includi= ng either driving tens of miles or recreating EAP/PEAP secured network in the = home lab.=20=20 I have no insight into @freebsd.org e-mail server setup, but believe it does some false positives marking messages as SPAM what makes writing direct ema= il messages a bit hopeless. The first conclusion: "no other setups are probably affected" is pretty sad= and means that FreeBSD's user base became FreeBSD's consumer base. I have repor= ted this breakage a week or two ago on the net@ mailing list and there was no feedback at all. The FreeBSD consumer base utilizes probably only RELEASEs = and cares neither for the development process nor for the quality of the upcomi= ng product. The final question which comes here is: Do we really need wpa_supplicant in= the base? I was against ftpd(8) removal which IMHO is an imminent part of the FreeBSD OS, but wpa_supplicant can be easily installed from ports. Consumers who have only WiFi access can have the package on the USB stick. Kind regards,=20 FreeBSD User --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Mon Sep 20 22:08:30 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EC5175F13C for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HCzGQ43g6z3Jv7 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6831A17F72 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18KM8U4B082138 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:08:30 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18KM8UAZ082137 for net@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:08:30 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:08:30 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258527 --- Comment #17 from Cy Schubert --- (In reply to Marek Zarychta from comment #16) > We should all take it easy, it is a minor breakage and probably no other = setups except mine are affected. On the other hand, the security/wpa_suppli= cant from ports still works as intended. The problem is similar to the one fixed in -CURRENT during testing of the import of WPA that supported WiFi 6. It was fixed there during testing howe= ver this PR clearly shows that the problem wasn't the WiFi 6 wpa but instead the restructuring. The fix is the same. The fix will be MFCed into stable/12 and stable/13 in about two months anyw= ay. It's the same fix that I posted here that I should have bisected and commit= ted before committing WiFi 6 but I understood at the time that this was a WiFi 6 wpa problem but in fact it was with how I structured the Makefiles. The fix= is an MFC of a tiny part of what will be MFCed. > The QA process takes some time, the same for debugging and writing patche= s, but also taking dumps and testing patches requires some time and effort = including either driving tens of miles or recreating EAP/PEAP secured netwo= rk in the home lab. This is appreciated. I had access to EAP/PEAP at $JOB but now we are #WFH. = The office is permanently closed and I work from home now. The commute is great= but access to EAP/PEAP not so great. > I have no insight into @freebsd.org e-mail server setup, but believe it d= oes some false positives marking messages as SPAM what makes writing direct= email messages a bit hopeless. FreeBSD mail servers don't block spam. I have a .forward at freebsd.org whi= ch forwards to my cschubert.com, which runs spamassassin on my mail gateway. It add SPAM headers which are read by procmail on my laptop which files emails into a SPAM folder. This is totally my fault. I should have checked my spam folder. I'm sorry. As to why spamassassin believes your emails are SPAM, Content analysis details: (5.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -----------------------------------------------= --- 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100% [score: 1.0000] 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000] 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 DEAR_SOMETHING BODY: Contains 'Dear (something)' -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signa= ture 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessa= rily valid -0.0 NICE_REPLY_A Looks like a legit reply (A) > The first conclusion: "no other setups are probably affected" is pretty s= ad and means that FreeBSD's user base became FreeBSD's consumer base. I hav= e reported this breakage a week or two ago on the net@ mailing list and the= re was no feedback at all. The FreeBSD consumer base utilizes probably only= RELEASEs and cares neither for the development process nor for the quality= of the upcoming product. Sadly many people run -RELEASE. > The final question which comes here is: Do we really need wpa_supplicant = in the base? I was against ftpd(8) removal which IMHO is an imminent part o= f the FreeBSD OS, but wpa_supplicant can be easily installed from ports. Co= nsumers who have only WiFi access can have the package on the USB stick. Yes, IMO client utilities should be in base. Server daemons such as hostapd, krb5kdc, and the like probably should not be. Though, pkgbase would solve a= lot of this. Developer maintenance time is another factor. Mozilla and Google have deprecated FTP from their browsers. Soon the only F= TP clients will be the command line clients and those in utilities like filezi= lla. Lastly, at $JOB, our F5 does not support FTP. F5 has removed the FTP protoc= ol from their Internet Gateway product line. I think that eventually FTP won't= be supported anywhere. It's fine if we wait until the new WPA is MFCed. EAP/PEAP is probably not as used now that people (like me and others) work from home, permanently. I'll have to set up EAP/PEAP here. I can use either one of my computers downstairs as I use hostapd on it to test or I have a AP that can be config= ured to use radius. I'll need to set up a radius server with Kerberos authentica= tion to test. Probably a good idea anyway. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From eugen@grosbein.net Mon Sep 20 23:04:18 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D18C178DB52 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:04:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HD0W71Szzz3R9t for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:04:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (root@eg.sd.rdtc.ru [62.231.161.221] (may be forged)) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 18KN4Q2G010292 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:04:27 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18KN4Ppt069141 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:04:25 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com, freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <045c2921-bc3b-d3c7-893f-edf2f823eeb2@grosbein.net> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:04:18 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT No description available. * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HD0W71Szzz3R9t X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N 21.09.2021 2:32, driesm.michiels@gmail.com wrote: > I have also found some mentions of net/mpd5, is this a better > implementation? Basically, it all depends on available CPU horsepower and if you have plenty of it unused, you can stick with base ppp(8). But in any case, net/mpd5 provides huge CPU usage decrease and it will give you more speed if the router found CPU-bound. From nobody Mon Sep 20 23:06:50 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445B8178E50A for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:07:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from forward108j.mail.yandex.net (forward108j.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:801:2::253]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HD0Z03mDMz3hHg for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:07:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from sas1-220b3000ec3a.qloud-c.yandex.net (sas1-220b3000ec3a.qloud-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c08:796:0:640:220b:3000]) by forward108j.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 35F3B3F1F8B5; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:06:55 +0300 (MSK) Received: from sas1-7a2c1d25dbfc.qloud-c.yandex.net (sas1-7a2c1d25dbfc.qloud-c.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:c08:c9f:0:640:7a2c:1d25]) by sas1-220b3000ec3a.qloud-c.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id d39Sgzftkv-6sEmGxYC; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:06:55 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfw.ru; s=mail; t=1632179215; bh=6NnZ7d4lWHYtH4LBkmsBEofaDKsX3QWCH8PbZyJS1Lc=; h=To:References:Date:Subject:Cc:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:From; b=XgaLEk+mqZq2GjxS3EWdYSlKS7uW4S7R8zh3It73UfZvJmGrUN2KFjbq1JT+fJeHx 5Pmjjc6tKL10fwzLjjHtZDHNN1Ay9JdihEZEkZZmJk8jM36QFB5VtHMha/9l+8icev NVpqYyMluligPfCmqM8xnp6JWPiFylRvE6/50mok= Received: by sas1-7a2c1d25dbfc.qloud-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id yhAirzFA5M-6rl88aAu; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:06:53 +0300 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client certificate not present) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: ROUTE_MPATH and hashing From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:06:50 +0100 Cc: freebsd-net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Mark Kamichoff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HD0Z03mDMz3hHg X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=ipfw.ru header.s=mail header.b=XgaLEk+m; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of melifaro@ipfw.ru designates 2a02:6b8:0:801:2::253 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=melifaro@ipfw.ru X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.00 / 15.00]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a02:6b8:0::/52]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[ipfw.ru:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:208722, ipnet:2a02:6b8::/32, country:FI]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[ipfw.ru:s=mail]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[melifaro]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[ipfw.ru]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > On 17 Sep 2021, at 01:36, Mark Kamichoff wrote: >=20 > Hi -=20 >=20 Hi Mark, > Does anyone here know how to tweak the hashing algorithm (per = flow/packet/x) > that's used for the new ROUTE_MPATH option that's in 13? >=20 > I'm using FRR 7 and I see both routes in the FIB but only one is ever > chosen and takes traffic. Is it IPv6 forwarding or the packets are originated locally? In case of former, what is the receive interface? (e.g. is it tun as = well)? >=20 > (dax:20:23:EDT)% show ipv6 route 2620:6:2003:105::/64 =20 > Routing entry for 2620:6:2003:105::/64 > Known via "bgp", distance 20, metric 0, best > Last update 08:24:34 ago > 2620:6:2000:104::35 (recursive), weight 1 > * 2620:6:2000:1ff::10c2, via tun9, weight 1 > * 2620:6:2000:1ff::1172, via tun12, weight 1 >=20 > (dax:20:23:EDT)% netstat -rn|grep 2620:6:2003:105::/64 > 2620:6:2003:105::/64 2620:6:2000:1ff::1172 UG1 = tun12 > 2620:6:2003:105::/64 2620:6:2000:1ff::10c2 UG1 = tun9 > (dax:20:23:EDT)% route -n6 get 2620:6:2003:105:: =20 > route to: 2620:6:2003:105:: > destination: 2620:6:2003:105:: > mask: ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:: > gateway: 2620:6:2000:1ff::1172 > fib: 0 > interface: tun12 > flags: > recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec mtu weight expire > 0 0 0 0 1455 0 0=20 > (dax:20:23:EDT)% >=20 > I didn't see any sysctls exposed but maybe I'm not looking in the = right > place. >=20 > - Mark >=20 > --=20 > Mark Kamichoff > prox@prolixium.com > https://www.prolixium.com/ >=20 From nobody Tue Sep 21 00:15:43 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C885F17A517D for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:15:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prox@prolixium.com) Received: from nox.prolixium.com (nox.prolixium.com [IPv6:2620:6:2000:104::1e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HD25M5NXPz3nBT for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:15:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prox@prolixium.com) Received: from prox by nox.prolixium.com with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mSTRn-007lm3-VD; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:15:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:15:43 -0500 From: Mark Kamichoff To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" Cc: freebsd-net Subject: Re: ROUTE_MPATH and hashing Message-ID: References: List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: prox@prolixium.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on nox.prolixium.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HD25M5NXPz3nBT X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Hi - On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:06:50AM +0100, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > Is it IPv6 forwarding or the packets are originated locally? > In case of former, what is the receive interface? (e.g. is it tun as well)? I've tested both. Neither work as expected. In the original example, all traffic takes tun12 and tun9 has no traffic other than periodic ND packets. To answer your second question, the receive interface is virtio, since this is a VM connected to a BGP session on its host, which is connected to the IPv6 Internet. Here's a small diagram: (IPv6 Internet) | | |-----------| |--------------| | Linux |vboxnet0---vtnet1| FreeBSD VM | |-----------| |--------------| tun9 tun12 | | | | tun2 tun3 |------------| | Linux #2 | |------------| | (downstream network) I have done tests from hosts on the downstream network to and from the Internet as well as from the FreeBSD VM directly to the Linux #2 host. - Mark -- Mark Kamichoff prox@prolixium.com https://www.prolixium.com/ From nobody Tue Sep 21 07:03:35 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269BA17C7B8A for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:03:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDC7q0P7mz3LTG for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:03:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1FD81F63E for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:03:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18L73Yg5091020 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:03:34 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18L73Ys0091019 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:03:34 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:03:35 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam: Yes X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258527 --- Comment #18 from Marek Zarychta --- I had an opportunity to test it today and can confirm that the patch solves= the issue for me. It's only a minor breakage and not so many people are affected, so we can w= ait a bit for the MFC, but the decision of timings and further closing this bug= I leave over to the committer.=20 Anyway, thank you very much for unbreaking this in an expedited way. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Tue Sep 21 07:18:24 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7916C17C9792 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:18:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDCSw2wjNz3Mjs for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:18:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F961F75B for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:18:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18L7IOMZ095871 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:18:24 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18L7IO6Q095870 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:18:24 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:18:24 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: linimon@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: assigned_to Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 Mark Linimon changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bugs@FreeBSD.org |net@FreeBSD.org --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Tue Sep 21 07:48:50 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4C517CCC1C for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:49:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from contact@evilham.com) Received: from yggdrasil.evilham.com (yggdrasil.evilham.com [46.19.33.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDD8F2CZPz3QKv for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:49:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from contact@evilham.com) Received: from yggdrasil.evilham.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by yggdrasil.evilham.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HDD8448HRz2S4C; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:48:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=evilham.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=mail; bh=O71ucNAhHaffiMzYmT5AnEK8hYQ=; b=Xl4sfH HenZC8DrPEjDoDn0tzKyeVfUOZFt+VI0LQ6vQz/MdCd8+XNYA5tBfKU1KCvYNMZG DjPibiFEo34QTzFl/S/QKNb8LRlBM75uEvkKBIz2YWDTUkom/J7S9REidG6D2TFX MdFUZBbqZurnLUQIc4ZjwWpoPf3A3yT6rcMZE= Received: from yggdrasil.evilham.com (2a0a-e5c1-121-1--1.ipv6.magic.ungleich.ch [IPv6:2a0a:e5c1:121:1::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by yggdrasil.evilham.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HDD835ytGz2S4B; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:48:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Evilham To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD References: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> In-reply-to: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:48:50 +0200 Message-ID: <088518bd664aa2e73bb75b9fdb304cbd3988@yggdrasil.evilham.com> List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HDD8F2CZPz3QKv X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On dl., set. 20 2021, driesm.michiels@gmail.com wrote: > Hi net mailing list, > > > > Currently at my parrents house we have just a cable modem where > I use DHCPv6 > and DHCP to get a IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address respectivelly. > > For this config everything is done in the kernel regarding > routing. The ISP > is Telenet and they give me 300 down / 20 up (mbps). > > > > But I really want a higher upload in my future appartment where > I will be > moving is *soonTm*. > > So looking for ISP's in Belgium, Proximus seems to provide a > fibre plan (if > fibre is available, but it should be) that does 500 down / 50 up > (mbps). > > They use PPPOE and was wondering what the max troughput looks > like with the > in-base PPPOE client? > > I have also found some mentions of net/mpd5, is this a better > implementation? > > > > Thanks > > Dries I wrote my experience with PPPoE for a dual-stack FreeBSD router back in very late 2019 here: https://evilham.com/en/blog/2019-FreeBSD-eXO-router/ it might save you some trouble. Not much has changed since I wrote that, just as others mentioned: mpd5 is kind of a must, performance gets much better just by using mpd5. FWIW my home fiber runs at 600Mbps without any issues (only limited by the wholesale provider). Cheers, -- Evilham From nobody Tue Sep 21 09:52:58 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0D317598F0 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:53:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ftk@nanoteq.com) Received: from delivery.e-purifier.com (delivery.e-purifier.com [41.168.2.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDGvb4XN1z3sK5 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:53:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ftk@nanoteq.com) Received: from sec-ngp-ag01.neotel.e-purifier.co.za ([192.168.202.31] helo=SEC-NGP-AG01) by delivery.e-purifier.com with smtp (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1mScSY-0006Ag-Ns for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:53:06 +0200 Received: from sec-ngp-spt06.e-purifier.com ([192.168.201.1]) by SEC-NGP-AG01.neotel.e-purifier.co.za with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:53:03 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sec-ngp-spt06.e-purifier.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64DE698248 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:53:04 +0200 (SAST) X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at e-purifier.com Received: from sec-ngp-spt06.e-purifier.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sec-ngp-spt06.e-purifier.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02649698242 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:52:59 +0200 (SAST) Received: from NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za (unknown [41.170.5.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sec-ngp-spt06.e-purifier.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C761369823D for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:52:58 +0200 (SAST) Received: from NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za ([fe80::a5b3:4700:5af3:78b2]) by NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za ([fe80::a5b3:4700:5af3:78b2%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0513.000; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:52:58 +0200 From: Francois ten Krooden To: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Subject: RE: Vector Packet Processing (VPP) portability on FreeBSD Thread-Topic: Vector Packet Processing (VPP) portability on FreeBSD Thread-Index: AQHXRapQkx/sKwTM3EOdxg1D+Pz3RqrhREohgAAEi1D//+jugIAAL0oAgAQ6h4CAAdzSEIAAXLoAgADt0YCAAOTRgIAKBngAgAAE4QCAu14JoA== Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:52:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: <91e21d18a4214af4898dd09f11144493@EX16-05.ad.unipi.it> <20210517192054.0907beea@x23> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-ZA Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2021 09:53:04.0048 (UTC) FILETIME=[78989300:01D7AECE] x-archived: yes x-dbused: RGF0YSBTb3VyY2U9MTkyLjE2OC4yMDEuMjc= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HDGvb4XN1z3sK5 X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ftk@nanoteq.com has no SPF policy when checking 41.168.2.24) smtp.mailfrom=ftk@nanoteq.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.00 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[Nanoteq.com]; MIME_BASE64_TEXT_BOGUS(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[1.000]; MIME_BASE64_TEXT(0.10)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36937, ipnet:41.168.0.0/17, country:ZA]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N SGkNCg0KVGhpcyBpcyBqdXN0IHNvbWUgZmVlZGJhY2sgZm9yIHRob3NlIHdobyBoYWQgYW4gaW50 ZXJlc3QgaW4gdGhpcyB0b3BpYy4NCg0KQWZ0ZXIgc3BlbmRpbmcgcXVpdGUgc29tZSB0aW1lIG9u IHRoZSBWUFAgdG8gRnJlZUJTRCBwb3J0aW5nIGVmZm9ydCB3aGVyZSB3ZSBkaWQgbWFuYWdlIHRv IGdldCBWUFAgd29ya2luZyB3aXRoIG5ldG1hcCwgYW5kIFZQUCBjb21waWxpbmcgd2l0aCBEUERL OyBXZSByZWFsaXNlZCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIGJpZyBpc3N1ZXMgdGhhdCB3ZSB3b3Vs ZCBuZWVkIHRvIG92ZXJjb21lLiBTb21lIG9mIHRoZXNlIGVmZm9ydHMgYXJlIG5vdCB2aWFibGUg Zm9yIG91ciBzbWFsbCB0ZWFtIHRvIGFjY29tcGxpc2ggaW4gYSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRpbWUgZnJh bWUuDQpUaGUgbWFpbiBpc3N1ZXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGZvdW5kIGFyZToNCi0gVGVzdHMgcHJv dmVkIHRoYXQgbmV0bWFwIHdvdWxkIG5vdCBkZWxpdmVyIHRoZSBkZXNpcmVkIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNl IGFzIGl0IGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCB3aXRoaW4gVlBQLiBUaGUgbWFpbiBpc3N1 ZXMgaGVyZSBhcmUgdGhhdCBmb3IgZXZlcnkgMjU2IHBhY2tldHMgbWVtb3J5IHNlZW1zIHRvIGJl IGFsbG9jYXRlZCBhZ2FpbiwgYWxzbyBhIG51bWJlciBvZiBjb3BpZXMgb2NjdXIgaW4gdGhlIG1l bW9yeSB3aGljaCBzbG93cyBkb3duIHRoZSBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZS4NCi0gVlBQIHJlbGllcyBvbiBW RklPIHRvIG1hcCBkZXZpY2UgbWVtb3J5IGludG8gdXNlciBzcGFjZSBmb3IgcHJvY2Vzc2luZyB3 aXRoaW4gdGhlIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uLiBUaGlzIGNvZGUgaXMgaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQgaW4gRFBESyBp biB0aGUgTGludXggaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gYnV0IGluIHRoZSBGcmVlQlNEIGltcGxlbWVudGF0 aW9uIGluIERQREsgdGhlc2UgZnVuY3Rpb25zIGFyZSBzdHViYmVkLg0KLSBUbyBpbnRlcmZhY2Ug d2l0aCBjcnlwdG8tb2ZmbG9hZGluZyBoYXJkd2FyZSBzdWNoIGFzIHRoZSBRQVQgY2FyZCBmcm9t IEludGVsLCBvciBvdXIgb3duIGNhcmQgVlBQL0RQREsgYWxzbyB1dGlsaXplIFZGSU8gd2l0aCB0 aGUgUENJIGRldmljZS4NCi0gQXMgZmFyIGFzIHdlIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBhYmxlIHRvIHNlZSB0aGUg VkZJTyBzdXBwb3J0IGluIEZyZWVCU0QgaXMgbm90IGF0IHRoZSBzYW1lIGxldmVsIGFzIExpbnV4 LCB3aGljaCB3b3VsZCB0aGVuIHJlcXVpcmUgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBrZXJuZWwgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQg d2hpY2ggaXMgbm90IHBvc3NpYmxlIGluIHRoZSB0aW1lIGZyYW1lLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzDQoNCkZy YW5jb2lzIHRlbiBLcm9vZGVuDQpQcmluY2lwYWwgRGV2ZWxvcGVyDQoNCg0KICAgICAgICBUZWw6 ICsyNyAxMiA2NzIgNzAwMA0KICAgICAgICBGYXg6ICsyNyAxMiA2NjUgMTM0Mw0KICAgICAgICBQ b3N0YWw6IFAuTy4gQm94IDc5OTEsIENlbnR1cmlvbiwgMDA0Ng0KICAgICAgICBQaHlzaWNhbDog VW5pdCBDMDEsIENvcnBvcmF0ZSBQYXJrIDY2LCAyNjkgVm9uIFdpbGxpY2ggQXZlbnVlLCBDZW50 dXJpb24NCg0KDQoNCkltcG9ydGFudCBOb3RpY2U6DQoNClRoaXMgZS1tYWlsIGFuZCBpdHMgY29u dGVudHMgYXJlIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gdGhlIE5hbm90ZXEgKFB0eSkgTHRkIGUtbWFpbCBsZWdhbCBu b3RpY2UgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0Og0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5uYW5vdGVxLmNvbS9BYm91dFVzL0VtYWls RGlzY2xhaW1lci5hc3B4DQo= From nobody Tue Sep 21 13:30:54 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DBC17CFCBD for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDMkk3nC8z4hnH for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 628E924D1A for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18LDUsKR071704 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:30:54 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18LDUsvH071703 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:30:54 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:30:54 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cy@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258527 Cy Schubert changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Open |In Progress --- Comment #19 from Cy Schubert --- Thank you for taking the time to test the patch. It is appreciated. I haven= 't decided yet whether to MFC part of c1d255d3ff (the part that is posted here) earlier than Nov 3. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Tue Sep 21 18:53:04 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E63117CDBEA for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:53:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from driesm.michiels@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDVtZ1znXz3r9f for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:53:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from driesm.michiels@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id c21so444887edj.0 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:53:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :thread-index; bh=Zt24kKi2UCxiVq+AqIZkSh9HV3Az9K3yKm3LVnLWMoM=; b=qOlLVxEBe4MCyuVFA1zXMJzpD3ItjMTs+W2LoEtc6EJw78k8/QjGu+B7Wrd3KCErt0 28QxcK2QBFQmYzg0/Z+boipa9ai4TtSRm6GEk8JBTO38MKHLr11KrFxZyaViap1eeopi AiJVSfMgMI+xq4G0B0X9n81tDV4M/XclnB8cavO2htzGA6d8rNM1DNasjXwAX/l56Juk Vl2pza9iK1jGm8Fxn+4b8qSv5V74t+akULbW6fbWEj52O6NLwGyqPVUeH77o4+tVclIm q5j+16DPMqxYH/GZiePQccHknb8ANv62hnrP/SxmdRuFibUbS9kUn4kYqg74jsTGkPuc DBHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :thread-index; bh=Zt24kKi2UCxiVq+AqIZkSh9HV3Az9K3yKm3LVnLWMoM=; b=hwAbFG3q78i5CHUcNOkuSca8tXRRxG5+nTmPbyBcADpRKpK7SiEbQrusypf2J7GbIa ME0fiLWTwqZVvhTeMvOau2PgzayATCQYlMHCgafGqihg/isE76R4qMILDfuclfrAZ9Py gDlXt1ma2Z1R4/L933T02/owQo6gg/KSB2B/m9uen2cEZ1+4/cBeQSVLr4E9/XVp0E3K roBpfNcVeFcK2kQEKos0hmpBaimYwnUJmxUMZdKcNBBhTj4FTECqlT5D7mp52e4GGvju xpdKjROgbXPS67eiLk9p/Byw8MMaz/ItHzXQNocMuKnYMnAThjs67V0Tzp5iSUyo7Psv AkEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GQCsaFhh5tGsw9XM9dtlDtz0hpHcDRc4P3Cw6O1TX8H/V3v7C GsBatkBsFvW7xCRd8ZgwmNfoLzXRm4hAfg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTMdhwNu6UVcp7z+ZRBOmbZbMcbO/JqtmE/NcjX503vx4+4l1yMhjb8Tb6+PtKBVwCkX6V5Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c342:: with SMTP id ci2mr36198331ejb.122.1632250385595; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DRIESPC (ptr-8slu6d4bqxeuoh1zn20.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be. [2a02:1811:251a:d211:a466:1b9b:3cfe:e478]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f4sm2822072ejf.61.2021.09.21.11.53.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:53:04 -0700 (PDT) From: To: "'Evilham'" Cc: References: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> <088518bd664aa2e73bb75b9fdb304cbd3988@yggdrasil.evilham.com> In-Reply-To: <088518bd664aa2e73bb75b9fdb304cbd3988@yggdrasil.evilham.com> Subject: RE: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:53:04 +0200 Message-ID: <004101d7af19$e9411a00$bbc34e00$@gmail.com> List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-be Thread-Index: AQG8Q6N/FGSnPR1y0D82Yvu6mnykHAHr3r0bq9ZNfxA= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HDVtZ1znXz3r9f X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > -----Original Message----- > From: Evilham > Sent: Tuesday, 21 September 2021 09:49 > To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com > Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD > > > On dl., set. 20 2021, driesm.michiels@gmail.com wrote: > > > Hi net mailing list, > > > > > > > > Currently at my parrents house we have just a cable modem where I use > > DHCPv6 and DHCP to get a IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address respectivelly. > > > > For this config everything is done in the kernel regarding routing. > > The ISP is Telenet and they give me 300 down / 20 up (mbps). > > > > > > > > But I really want a higher upload in my future appartment where > > I will be > > moving is *soonTm*. > > > > So looking for ISP's in Belgium, Proximus seems to provide a > > fibre plan (if > > fibre is available, but it should be) that does 500 down / 50 up > > (mbps). > > > > They use PPPOE and was wondering what the max troughput looks > > like with the > > in-base PPPOE client? > > > > I have also found some mentions of net/mpd5, is this a better > > implementation? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Dries > > I wrote my experience with PPPoE for a dual-stack FreeBSD router > back in very late 2019 here: > https://evilham.com/en/blog/2019-FreeBSD-eXO-router/ it might save > you some trouble. > > Not much has changed since I wrote that, just as others mentioned: > mpd5 is kind of a must, performance gets much better just by using > mpd5. FWIW my home fiber runs at 600Mbps without any issues (only > limited by the wholesale provider). And is that with the in-base client or with net/mpd5? > > Cheers, > -- > Evilham From nobody Tue Sep 21 20:36:22 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9D217D7C74 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:36:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from contact@evilham.com) Received: from yggdrasil.evilham.com (yggdrasil.evilham.com [46.19.33.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDY9k29nPz4Vwl for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:36:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from contact@evilham.com) Received: from yggdrasil.evilham.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by yggdrasil.evilham.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HDY9h0XxJz2S6r; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 22:36:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=evilham.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=mail; bh=Ldz6Rfn7C+tObDZY+oTEhNmuFpk=; b=b0b8J0 edZn5NKSfRajiDTlCon9CCunTYmKhqruAtSLzQe7VfjeT4/jWqjzau+EV2RatPcm WNUjMBR6g1oQzGEWNiw6/+ba8GNqQ8FT0sPqBa8I8XfMDPf9idmIZgdpaNW9UrL+ rtp0aSIABAy79lm1vmpqwCYgsGkyD0QZaiP60= Received: from yggdrasil.evilham.com (2a0a-e5c1-121-1--1.ipv6.magic.ungleich.ch [IPv6:2a0a:e5c1:121:1::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by yggdrasil.evilham.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HDY9g4VXpz2S6q; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 22:36:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Evilham To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD References: <001001d7ae56$3c204fd0$b460ef70$@gmail.com> <088518bd664aa2e73bb75b9fdb304cbd3988@yggdrasil.evilham.com> <004101d7af19$e9411a00$bbc34e00$@gmail.com> In-reply-to: <004101d7af19$e9411a00$bbc34e00$@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 22:36:22 +0200 Message-ID: List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HDY9k29nPz4Vwl X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On dt., set. 21 2021, driesm.michiels@gmail.com wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Evilham >> Sent: Tuesday, 21 September 2021 09:49 >> To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com >> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD >> >> >> On dl., set. 20 2021, driesm.michiels@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > Hi net mailing list, >> > >> > >> > >> > Currently at my parrents house we have just a cable modem >> > where I use >> > DHCPv6 and DHCP to get a IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address >> > respectivelly. >> > >> > For this config everything is done in the kernel regarding >> > routing. >> > The ISP is Telenet and they give me 300 down / 20 up (mbps). >> > >> > >> > >> > But I really want a higher upload in my future appartment >> > where >> > I will be >> > moving is *soonTm*. >> > >> > So looking for ISP's in Belgium, Proximus seems to provide a >> > fibre plan (if >> > fibre is available, but it should be) that does 500 down / 50 >> > up >> > (mbps). >> > >> > They use PPPOE and was wondering what the max troughput looks >> > like with the >> > in-base PPPOE client? >> > >> > I have also found some mentions of net/mpd5, is this a better >> > implementation? >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Dries >> >> I wrote my experience with PPPoE for a dual-stack FreeBSD >> router >> back in very late 2019 here: >> https://evilham.com/en/blog/2019-FreeBSD-eXO-router/ it might >> save >> you some trouble. >> >> Not much has changed since I wrote that, just as others >> mentioned: >> mpd5 is kind of a must, performance gets much better just by >> using >> mpd5. FWIW my home fiber runs at 600Mbps without any issues >> (only >> limited by the wholesale provider). > > And is that with the in-base client or with net/mpd5? > Should have been clearer: the 600Mbps are with mpd5, that's why it is a must. Else, with the PPPoE in base this router became CPU bound at around 140Mbps. So, if anything, just use the client in base to bootstrap the connection, then replace that with mpd5 :-). -- Evilham From nobody Wed Sep 22 08:55:53 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B8D12722A8 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:55:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDsZw63KQz4fGp for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:55:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B17C814AAD for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:55:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18M8tqvs079241 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:55:52 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18M8tqe4079240 for net@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:55:52 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 253469] realtek-re-kmod MC filter problem Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:55:53 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: courtney.hicks1@icloud.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D253469 --- Comment #19 from courtney.hicks1@icloud.com --- Hey everyone, Sorry for leaving this issue hanging. I had a lot of changes in life happen= and I ended up forgetting about this. Since I posted last, I took an Intel 4x1G= bps card out of my server and put it in my desktop, but I want the card back in= my server. I'm using FreeBSD 13.0-RELEASE right now, the issue has gotten both worse a= nd better since I tried last. Currently, the driver doesn't appear to pay any attention to any rtadvs, rtsold does nothing, and at boot time I don't get = any address via DHCP. Here is part of my dmesg pertaining to re0 re0: port 0x3000-0x30ff mem 0xb3600000-0xb360ffff,0xb3610000-0xb3613fff at device 0.0 on pci5 re0: Using Memory Mapping! re0: Using 1 MSI-X message re0: ASPM disabled re0: version:1.96.04 re0: Ethernet address: This product is covered by one or more of the following patents:=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 US6,570,884, US6,115,776, and US6,327,625. re0: Ethernet address: re0: link state changed to UP I have to issue a dhclient once logged in to get an IPv4 address, then we're fine. Also interestingly, soon after manually adding an IPv6 address via ifconfig as well as an IPv6 default route, my device starts accepting rtadvs and I get an autoconf address as well as a temporary (as I've configured). Previously, my default router entries would expire. I could see the output = of ndp -r count down to 0. Now I see the expire time in the upper 20 minute ra= nge and always resetting the counter eache router adv. So, IPv4 has regressed. I now have to configure it via dhclient when I log = in. Maybe it'll expire, don't know yet. IPv6 works once I set a static IPv6 add= ress and route, then from there everything rtadv-related seems to work. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Wed Sep 22 09:22:03 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87AD71277107 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:22:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=+pQ9Po=OM=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net) Received: from bosmailout02.eigbox.net (bosmailout02.eigbox.net [66.96.184.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HDt9F2J6hz4k8t for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:22:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=+pQ9Po=OM=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net) Received: from bosmailscan08.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.8]) by bosmailout02.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1mSyS8-0007tW-Kx for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:22:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codenetworks.net; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Reply-To: Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=yDmMa8UdGwiGUbUn3hXok3ibgoMnpVS5X/Nyo9a9Aos=; b=sGBHTQx5tpTU1XigWKyATpP21j KoWwcREdQyrnmrnpl+TuQwSP7Epq/fZDFLU8ehTC+WyqSucyLTDEwuB0FYCb+W5cYao3bbFMT8FJ/ Z/sMwdJT/GIKrFy4gKYYLIxo4SdouFySkZ5WqG/shuvb6Yr+wFZ1waRXzVpGr9k8M/+hFU3GcDtzt LsajyRZfO6tmYS/Ijy9TjaNqr1Du+p1a1+GppACHMJCsrKTxDSDfx5kERTSpJgQVsyfLJ+k/M1CIh WnM+8upr8fk8ipZdwuZtb8kyydzyYnBG5qqGwBTa9tE2E73Vt+q9yeTzc20r2MEHE8vB8UY9SyvWq 0Ip67hhA==; Received: from [10.115.3.32] (helo=bosimpout12) by bosmailscan08.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1mSyS8-000161-8R for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:22:08 -0400 Received: from bosauthsmtp03.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.3]) by bosimpout12 with id wxN52500Y03yW7601xN8Dm; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:22:08 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=d4VuNSrE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=6uKCkKhFq2wXOH2GoQX8aA==:117 a=0uQB4SeFoYTQnAu9nHJYpg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=7QKq2e-ADPsA:10 a=ZXIg6Xh_i64A:10 a=WBfKHoA4AAAA:8 a=P79nY0tQOE5fhe-CbtcA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=6YAGbPlI47EA:10 a=HSBlF4sWv1d7km1GD3FH:22 Received: from cm-81-9-193-231.telecable.es ([81.9.193.231]:42193 helo=[192.168.1.100]) by bosauthsmtp03.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1mSyS4-0003VN-Um for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:22:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Vector Packet Processing (VPP) portability on FreeBSD To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20210517192054.0907beea@x23> From: Santiago Martinez Message-ID: <33b2b043-f3b7-e8e0-c290-f754082e0692@codenetworks.net> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:22:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-EN-UserInfo: d3bdfab0736480cedf04ed92aaea2ef5:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: sm@codenetworks.net X-EN-OrigIP: 81.9.193.231 X-EN-OrigHost: cm-81-9-193-231.telecable.es X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HDt9F2J6hz4k8t X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=codenetworks.net header.s=dkim header.b=sGBHTQx5; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of "SRS0=@eigbox.net" designates 66.96.184.2 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="SRS0=@eigbox.net" X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.00 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:66.96.128.0/18]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[codenetworks.net: no valid DMARC record]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[codenetworks.net:~]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[66.96.184.2:from]; R_DKIM_PERMFAIL(0.00)[codenetworks.net:s=dkim]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[sm@codenetworks.net,SRS0=@eigbox.net]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[66.96.184.2:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:29873, ipnet:66.96.128.0/18, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[pQ9Po=OM=codenetworks.net=sm]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[sm@codenetworks.net,SRS0=@eigbox.net]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[81.9.193.231:received] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Hi Francois, I hope you are doing well. It is great to hear about work/progress/updates on VPP / DPDK / Netmap on FBSD, even if the results are not the best. Unfortunately, I'm not a developer, so I cannot help much on the matter of the missing bits. Just wondering if those modifications that your team have done to make VPP run can be upstreamed or shared with the community, so maybe we can create a VPP package making it easier for others to deploy/test/improve. On the other hand, do you roughly know how much effort is required to make VFIO support at the same level as Linux? I hope it makes sense. Best regards. Santiago On 9/21/21 11:52 AM, Francois ten Krooden wrote: > Hi > > This is just some feedback for those who had an interest in this topic. > > After spending quite some time on the VPP to FreeBSD porting effort where we did manage to get VPP working with netmap, and VPP compiling with DPDK; We realised that there are some big issues that we would need to overcome. Some of these efforts are not viable for our small team to accomplish in a reasonable time frame. > The main issues that we have found are: > - Tests proved that netmap would not deliver the desired performance as it is currently implemented within VPP. The main issues here are that for every 256 packets memory seems to be allocated again, also a number of copies occur in the memory which slows down the performance. > - VPP relies on VFIO to map device memory into user space for processing within the application. This code is implemented in DPDK in the Linux implementation but in the FreeBSD implementation in DPDK these functions are stubbed. > - To interface with crypto-offloading hardware such as the QAT card from Intel, or our own card VPP/DPDK also utilize VFIO with the PCI device. > - As far as we have been able to see the VFIO support in FreeBSD is not at the same level as Linux, which would then require additional kernel development which is not possible in the time frame. > > Regards > > Francois ten Krooden > Principal Developer > > > Tel: +27 12 672 7000 > Fax: +27 12 665 1343 > Postal: P.O. Box 7991, Centurion, 0046 > Physical: Unit C01, Corporate Park 66, 269 Von Willich Avenue, Centurion > > > > Important Notice: > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the Nanoteq (Pty) Ltd e-mail legal notice available at: > http://www.nanoteq.com/AboutUs/EmailDisclaimer.aspx From nobody Wed Sep 22 23:21:32 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860EB1759C83 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:21:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HFDnm343lz3n6t for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:21:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AD3D2068B for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:21:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18MNLW3g090092 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:21:32 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18MNLWQK090091 for net@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:21:32 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:21:32 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258623 --- Comment #8 from Kubilay Kocak --- (In reply to Konrad from comment #7) Are you able to boot a 14-CURRENT snapshot to attempt reproduction on that version? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Thu Sep 23 22:46:37 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3EB175A389 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:46:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevin.bowling@kev009.com) Received: from mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HFqzF0Q91z4mTN for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:46:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevin.bowling@kev009.com) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com with SMTP id s16so1670344ybe.0 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:46:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kev009.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e0uMcGkE8Dc41fMS8TTFuYOnktiB6iyawt7SnC5YETo=; b=mCSpwxzyeZR5yqtkd2yJ995BboGFCLx+mJpLfpqHuyU3Q+V6W8KomTUsgkJDuQnWuj z8AKbdaz/CRtWDMDMeWg6UJeTrk8+c6CrgzycDsqrIzPlwtfRlSER+6XW/MtBXCJZ+GY PlrNX3uk/xmG5UIJbKFFZpEva9E3IQHUeU7sE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e0uMcGkE8Dc41fMS8TTFuYOnktiB6iyawt7SnC5YETo=; b=1sLYNDXTcJ6Vo+kh5ApCKb3aukqWnFi07IvFgVK0ClverB9Po4TmF9uE3GGMj5KxvZ AK+LOK8Fmu+DDe7Ou4EN6hP7rRS+HRDtCbESqj714vEXBKMTrfKOG+cW+biL3/YtqPAT yfUiJxbyMq98k2AaBSdul0DxtRMozdpNkRvnbNcWaXMgL4UscpozD0mK365ubxQl9bag NvogqHpnJSv/EeRDN0PzhUUNiJ52tUNqMNdboFleEkuPzWfn/dEB3StpWRytLWnmrt7+ r4CZFQrnVGcBgW1DdLmK69PRgNNoCSBP+Gd6y01af0ThbPPGo32wrnLqlYs2HEAqMInr Nu+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pav7LMIblR+Z8hH8wMb+LMTFYR6F/FdXfQKOzX+BltKFWJ+jH 57dmeFzAZlqNfwSHqnOjnNmZcPuOq01k7ep67zE5t54P5kpzynCE X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBvVWYmc18lenmP1knk17koP+306u8tpxY4sYKDuR01VrEw4aXthojCV5IBkQlVARUm8GFq9c1HyPS4gwaA50= X-Received: by 2002:a25:500c:: with SMTP id e12mr8518388ybb.493.1632437208411; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:46:48 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Kevin Bowling Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:46:37 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: igb(4) and VLAN issue? To: Franco Fichtner Cc: FreeBSD Net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HFqzF0Q91z4mTN X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=kev009.com header.s=google header.b=mCSpwxzy; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kevin.bowling@kev009.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kevin.bowling@kev009.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.30 / 15.00]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[kev009.com:~]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.998]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[kev009.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c:from]; R_DKIM_PERMFAIL(0.00)[kev009.com:s=google]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Franco, I think I found it: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D32087 Regards, Kevin On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Kevin Bowling wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 8:27 AM Franco Fichtner wrote: > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > [RESENT TO MAILING LIST AS SUBSCRIBER] > > > > > On 2. Aug 2021, at 7:51 PM, Kevin Bowling wrote: > > > > > > I caught wind that an igb(4) commit I've done to main and that has > > > been in stable/12 for a few months seems to be causing a regression on > > > opnsense. The commit in question is > > > https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=eea55de7b10808b86277d7fdbed2d05d3c6db1b2 > > > > > > The report is at: > > > https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=23867.0 > > > > Looks like I spoke to soon earlier. This is a weird one for sure. :) > > > > So first of all this causes an ifconfig hang for VLAN/LAGG combo creation, > > but later reports were coming in about ahci errors and cam timeouts. > > Some reported the instabilities start with using netmap, but later others > > confirmed the same for high load scenarios without netmap in use. > > > > The does not appear to happen when MSIX is disabled, e.g.: > > > > # sysctl -a | grep dev.igb | grep msix > > dev.igb.5.iflib.disable_msix: 1 > > dev.igb.4.iflib.disable_msix: 1 > > dev.igb.3.iflib.disable_msix: 1 > > dev.igb.2.iflib.disable_msix: 1 > > dev.igb.1.iflib.disable_msix: 1 > > dev.igb.0.iflib.disable_msix: 1 > > > > What's also being linked to this is some form of softraid misbehaving > > and the general tendency for cheaper hardware with particular igb > > chipsets. > > Hmm, there is so much that /could/ be going on it's not easy to > pinpoint anything yet. If nothing jumps out after getting more data > it may be worth mitigating in your build that way and retrying once > you have updated to FreeBSD 13. > > > > I haven't heard of this issue elsewhere and cannot replicate it on my > > > I210s running main. I've gone over the code changes line by line > > > several times and verified all the logic and register writes and it > > > all looks correct to my understanding. The only hypothesis I have at > > > the moment is it may be some subtle timing issue since VLAN changes > > > unnecessarily restart the interface on e1000 until I push in a work in > > > progress to stop doing that. > > > > I also have no way of reproducing this locally, but the community is > > probably willing to give any kernel change a try that would address > > the problem without havinbg to back out the commit in question. > > I need some more info before making any changes. A full dmesg of the > older working version and a (partial?) dmesg of the broken would be > another useful data point to start out with, let's see if there is > something going on during MSI-X vector allocation etc. > > > > I'd like to see the output of all the processes or at least the > > > process configuring the VLANs to see where it is stuck. Franco, do > > > you have the ability to 'control+t' there or otherwise set up a break > > > into a debugger? Stacktraces would be a great start but a core and a > > > kernel may be necessary if it isn't obvious. > > > > Let me see if I can deliver on this easily. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Franco > > From nobody Fri Sep 24 07:37:41 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CE2175D3CB for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:37:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HG3lp4DFvz4RY7 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:37:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731B91267E for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:37:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18O7bgbo036780 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:37:42 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18O7bgYr036779 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:37:42 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194453] dummynet(4): pipe config bw parameter limited to 2Gbits/s (signed integer limit) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:37:41 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: kp@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D194453 Kristof Provost changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kp@freebsd.org --- Comment #21 from Kristof Provost --- (In reply to Franco Fichtner from comment #20) It does not fully solve the problem, no. It was committed because it was easy, and doubling the limit is not nothing. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Fri Sep 24 08:02:32 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75902175F35A for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HG4JT2jJnz4TRh for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DD67130AF for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18O82XSX051709 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:33 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18O82Xo3051708 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:33 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194453] dummynet(4): pipe config bw parameter limited to 2Gbits/s (signed integer limit) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:32 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: flagtypes.name keywords Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D194453 Kubilay Kocak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|maintainer-feedback?(loos@F |maintainer-feedback?(kp@fre |reeBSD.org) |ebsd.org) Keywords|needs-qa | --- Comment #22 from Kubilay Kocak --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #21) Close this pending discussion on list (or in a new issue) to solve this in = the broader/general case? The issue is resolved 'as reported' (no longer a signed integer limit) and = has been around since 2014. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Fri Sep 24 08:02:41 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13137175FB89 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HG4Jd4tnJz4TWd for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75B0D1314A for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18O82fWC051777 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:41 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18O82fOP051776 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:41 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194453] dummynet(4): pipe config bw parameter limited to 2Gbits/s (signed integer limit) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:02:41 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: flagtypes.name Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D194453 Kubilay Kocak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |mfc-stable13? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Fri Sep 24 08:06:44 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2AF17C0988 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:06:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HG4PK1bfXz4VVZ for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:06:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17DFA12E55 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:06:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18O86jE1052520 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:06:45 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18O86jYw052519 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:06:45 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194453] dummynet(4): pipe config bw parameter limited to 2Gbits/s (signed integer limit) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:06:44 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: kp@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? mfc-stable13? mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D194453 --- Comment #23 from Kristof Provost --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #22) That works for me. I have no plans to work on increasing this limit, but ae@ is working on a n= ew and improved dummynet version which will no doubt also address this problem= . As far as I know there's no timeline for that, but anyone interested in workin= g on this problem should coordinate with him. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Fri Sep 24 08:13:34 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15A517C1A7F for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:13:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HG4YC5WJXz4WV6 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:13:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EDD913606 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:13:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18O8DZIW059253 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:13:35 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18O8DZmD059252 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:13:35 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194453] dummynet(4): pipe config bw parameter limited to 2Gbits/s (signed integer limit) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:13:34 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: kp@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback+ mfc-stable13? mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc bug_status assigned_to flagtypes.name Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D194453 Kubilay Kocak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ae@FreeBSD.org Status|Open |In Progress Assignee|net@FreeBSD.org |kp@freebsd.org Flags|maintainer-feedback?(kp@fre |maintainer-feedback+ |ebsd.org) | --- Comment #24 from Kubilay Kocak --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #23) Appreciate the detail Kristof.=20 If we're aware of any breadcrumbs available (mailing list, reviews, or elsewhere) for Andreys plans or wip, please add them here. ^Triage: Assign to committer resolving via base 20ffd88ed54f pending MFC --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Fri Sep 24 19:55:22 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D191717D81C8 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:55:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGN6y5XD9z3nxp for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:55:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AB1F1C9E4 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:55:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18OJtMP4060208 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:55:22 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18OJtMc9060207 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:55:22 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 254695] Hyper-V + TCP_BBR: Kernel Panic: Assertion in_epoch(net_epoch_preempt) failed at netinet/tcp_lro.c:1180 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:55:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: crash, needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: gbe@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: tuexen@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable13? mfc-stable12? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D254695 --- Comment #43 from Gordon Bergling --- (In reply to commit-hook from comment #42) @tuexen: could you MFC this bugfix to stable/13? I think this bug can then = be closed. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Fri Sep 24 23:03:06 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3134175EEC0 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:03:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) Received: from vtr.rulingia.com (vtr.rulingia.com [IPv6:2001:19f0:5801:ebe:5400:1ff:fe53:30fd]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA512 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "vtr.rulingia.com", Issuer "R3" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGSHq4kx5z4WXS for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:03:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) Received: from server.rulingia.com (2001-44b8-31fc-0d00-d11a-6958-d721-8dd4.static.ipv6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:31fc:d00:d11a:6958:d721:8dd4]) by vtr.rulingia.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18ON3B3B054300 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:03:17 +1000 (AEST) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 vtr.rulingia.com 18ON3B3B054300 X-Bogosity: Ham, spamicity=0.000000 Received: from server.rulingia.com (localhost.rulingia.com [127.0.0.1]) by server.rulingia.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18ON363G038798 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:03:06 +1000 (AEST) (envelope-from peter@server.rulingia.com) Received: (from peter@localhost) by server.rulingia.com (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 18ON36mN038797 for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:03:06 +1000 (AEST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:03:06 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: IPSEC problems with pf Message-ID: List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="P4hRQtK7GgXDBj0k" Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: http://www.rulingia.com/keys/peter.pgp X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HGSHq4kx5z4WXS X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=rulingia.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of peter@rulingia.com designates 2001:19f0:5801:ebe:5400:1ff:fe53:30fd as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=peter@rulingia.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.90 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[peter]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx:c]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.20)[multipart/signed,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.998]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[rulingia.com,quarantine]; SIGNED_PGP(-2.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:20473, ipnet:2001:19f0:5800::/38, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --P4hRQtK7GgXDBj0k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm trying to setup an IPSEC transport connection between my home and one of my VPS hosts. I can successfully setup an IPv6 connection from an internal host to the VPS but can't setup an IPv4 connection from my firewall to that host. I'm using openiked-portable in esp transport mode using psk (at least for testing). =20 My configuration (much simplified) looks like: Host ---- firewall ---- (internet) ---- VPS =20 'Host' has a public IPv6 address and I can successfully setup an IPSEC transport connection between it and 'VPS'. =20 IPSEC doesn't work through NAT so I have setup an IPv4 IPSEC transport layer from firewall to VPS. The iked processes can exchange isakmp packets and appear to setup the connection. Running tcpdump on both ends, I see: * "ping VPS" from firewall sends ICMP packets in the clear. They arrive at VPS but there's no response. * "ping firewall" from VPS sends IPSEC esp packets which arrive at firewall but there's no response. Comparing the pf configurations between firewall and VPS, the main difference is that the firewall is configured to NAT internal hosts onto the Internet and RDR some inbound ports to internal hosts. I am logging blocked packets so I'm confident that pf is not blocking the esp packets. I've tried enabling net.inet.ipsec.debug and that generates occasional message like "kernel: key_acqdone: ACQ 19 is not found." but that hasn't helped me solve the problem. I don't understand: a) Why outgoing ICMP packets from firewall to VPS aren't going through the IPSEC transport. b) Why firewall is ignoring incoming IPSEC esp packets. Is anyone able to help? --=20 Peter Jeremy --P4hRQtK7GgXDBj0k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEE7rKYbDBnHnTmXCJ+FqWXoOSiCzQFAmFOWSJfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEVF QjI5ODZDMzA2NzFFNzRFNjVDMjI3RTE2QTU5N0EwRTRBMjBCMzQACgkQFqWXoOSi CzTgBg//S5jZglg7O4reqlnPU+GKQ7cthHAth2YZN4bplbtdsafcZ2owlB7fS4D5 57mie+hPGUinw8PWtPhx+D55QtmZO54XCExDh3I+aCjldyzuUs8ajarRjUTFh3g1 6YUbfvkgoyr1Gp4DE0AfTBZJ3QoZ97iO23jpSrk1JrJcNgIKymt+V5eCuW/8hLuo dNrw2E9l4l4B3tuHAnTiJpd2wORu4JtA8uDhkHQN1SzVsWqb7+AvGyvgWP/Qt7sE 6oQMweczDZrEgFEe0Oo0fShHCUnI+eRvfb5jUaR9P7pttNbWvYv5CqGviOVQaezw vd+F+TaHKQ1ke+wPQxnSPDn1r1csW6JNynV/OkTr7wCW6Dl+MI5MyTvyyIaCNQm2 ay2GYwQAo5+dFfp8y4sAoz7SFwaZe/lV1A9g+XTT7ibh5u09pwmLxsyGygvJBwWi CJWEUlX4pAnpLKc5Z3sV1rn4IW+FmWgwAqiIXwOW8SqTlrXQAGtCjS5OdQvRbJ5v 6ynZcOMSN3dlWJpq2KnZeq+4/rZX21IeghMLr6kBzbx/SMEEiRXy0V4EvidIEQ1b FXIwUQEYdIiRU5G04Bxmcm7pSdo+08fJBquTreOgI4TjKwCOC0kg+xt+utYVYv6X GC2eD4KrE+Sp6YM53kbWzvrnwgd9MDHPAqLrZnLUq8tOKGHpWg0= =GlZP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --P4hRQtK7GgXDBj0k-- From nobody Fri Sep 24 23:24:40 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E202017C0E90 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:25:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kudzu@tenebras.com) Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGSn94bwNz4XYD for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:25:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kudzu@tenebras.com) Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id y26so7276476lfa.11 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:25:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tenebras-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/R15JjtP2WwyXcHZgsA+/UsKCcboXOsVRpeIeQ7Ewxs=; b=r/0NEZxrnzfJhw4pnCOsDEsv8KEs5WDbrxv9qiG86EN5fCVisnZkpGQ1JNpczytsx2 jHGaWzIpl9oghMJmqd2g/xGWQnxvq+JD3H5m6/cyM8jTfmXUCOUQzIROlWGKUZ3MfPkd vpxOC2krvWAls5qrr7zjEfGKzDwjq1oInxRlu3sBPG+ANwKK2twMmfNLBuDI97DywYtj FiuXzgJySXhvgTV6TnrzaNDQ78OnRyY1y1Dwwm7od/fnS9WB7TOKao4OAuMxSnH9Nk5v IWBh0oCEQFRehWiVLXsXmzBT37wzj/fsHSDyykoGu6UVeA7S6haNJ/tIs2kAWwh98Ht1 XdBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/R15JjtP2WwyXcHZgsA+/UsKCcboXOsVRpeIeQ7Ewxs=; b=bPli56cw5ocy1x5MMhzIrEhZuDbAULKXd4DPokI30w72MLT1kxSRGiwgifj+v28tqS mbwQOqfRLo3fggi44lxtu19ngSbbt/hkTfi/zWMK8mvhJ8vGj1UXEroy1+S/XCgXpVJ0 y0sfalk/acXzz1et9Q529gPljtVGd/LztcKiT9cWBXDCHel3SNTjdKGn2VGjyvROiWd4 gS5YqwU1gKamSQizZPnxy4uoikNh1V1KYtYEFYJPrew2KEh1zNxfN2VIb/PfOgA2uBEP 4xYx1xn5ZJGfFgg0IgtOB0rhpQpc+sYlvAv4WRRPbDAhtH3/TcjY6dSgDj1m9tzhUDHY HV9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532k7UTZahZCgUaSoXoT1xxYU2p8qp2o51PlwVHXb1kOveUroVPT ntv+rG4kOT6N2GdfVBBqtqDHbaQcLUl25DmdPiOWKSpWLQk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrq3bfHstEjKY8uh3hEyVyxZ1JXiP8UsGGEhYpXnwIbR01Cu1tBGgOyr2OmSkvs+ymPSVKuU6M+6g2OZk4a68= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:16a4:: with SMTP id bu36mr11728370lfb.255.1632525916195; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:25:16 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Michael Sierchio Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:24:40 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: IPSEC problems with pf To: Peter Jeremy Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000052656a05ccc60f6b" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HGSn94bwNz4XYD X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: Y --00000000000052656a05ccc60f6b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:04 PM Peter Jeremy wrote: > > IPSEC doesn't work through NAT > Did NAT-T stop working? --00000000000052656a05ccc60f6b-- From nobody Sat Sep 25 00:03:01 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22B317C38B7 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:03:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from charles@freebsdbrasil.com.br) Received: from leviatan.freebsdbrasil.com.br (leviatan.freebsdbrasil.com.br [177.10.156.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGTct35Qvz4bD3 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:03:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from charles@freebsdbrasil.com.br) Received: (qmail 93182 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2021 21:03:02 -0300 Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 93173, pid: 93179, t: 0.1349s scanners: clamav: 0.102.3/m:59/d:25889 Received: from unknown ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender ) by capeta.freebsdbrasil.com.br (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 24 Sep 2021 21:03:01 -0300 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:03:01 -0300 From: charles@freebsdbrasil.com.br To: Peter Jeremy Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPSEC problems with pf In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.4 Message-ID: <175f93f5201e491589ecc38cac7b89af@freebsdbrasil.com.br> X-Sender: charles@freebsdbrasil.com.br Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HGTct35Qvz4bD3 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Em 2021-09-24 20:03, Peter Jeremy escreveu: > I'm trying to setup an IPSEC transport connection between my home and > one of my VPS hosts. I can successfully setup an IPv6 connection from > an internal host to the VPS but can't setup an IPv4 connection from my > firewall to that host. I'm using openiked-portable in esp transport > mode using psk (at least for testing). > > My configuration (much simplified) looks like: > Host ---- firewall ---- (internet) ---- VPS > > 'Host' has a public IPv6 address and I can successfully setup an IPSEC > transport connection between it and 'VPS'. > > IPSEC doesn't work through NAT so I have setup an IPv4 IPSEC transport > layer from firewall to VPS. The iked processes can exchange isakmp > packets and appear to setup the connection. Running tcpdump on both > ends, I see: > * "ping VPS" from firewall sends ICMP packets in the clear. They > arrive > at VPS but there's no response. > * "ping firewall" from VPS sends IPSEC esp packets which arrive at > firewall but there's no response. > > Comparing the pf configurations between firewall and VPS, the main > difference is that the firewall is configured to NAT internal hosts > onto the Internet and RDR some inbound ports to internal hosts. I > am logging blocked packets so I'm confident that pf is not blocking > the esp packets. > > I've tried enabling net.inet.ipsec.debug and that generates occasional > message like "kernel: key_acqdone: ACQ 19 is not found." but that > hasn't helped me solve the problem. > > I don't understand: > a) Why outgoing ICMP packets from firewall to VPS aren't going through > the IPSEC transport. > b) Why firewall is ignoring incoming IPSEC esp packets. > > Is anyone able to help? Hello! I have a client with similar conf Fortigate Local(IPSec) <-> FreeBSD with PF <-> Internet <-> Foritgate Remote(IPSec) In pf.conf something like this: FORTIGATE_LOCAL=10.0.0.11 EXT_IP=192.168.0.10 # normalization scrub in all fragment reassemble # NAT output nat on $IF_EXT from $FORTIGATE_LOCAL to any -> $EXT_IP # NAT IPSEC nat on $IF_EXT proto udp from $FORTIGATE_LOCAL port { 500, 4500 } to any -> $EXT_IP static-port nat on $IF_EXT proto esp from $FORTIGATE_LOCAL to any -> $EXT_IP static-port # rdr admin-fortigate rdr pass on $IF_EXT from any to $EXT_IP -> $FORTIGATE_LOCAL # internet output pass out on $IF_EXT from $EXT_IP to any I hope it's useful! From eugen@grosbein.net Sat Sep 25 00:31:11 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6965717C7657 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:31:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGVFY1DnBz4dMh; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:31:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (root@[62.231.161.221]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 18P0VIiJ053316 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:31:19 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: peter@rulingia.com Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadv@dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18P0VHwL015908 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:31:17 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: IPSEC problems with pf To: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: From: Eugene Grosbein Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" , "Alexander V. Chernikov" Message-ID: <63369d6b-23f3-3d4e-4ff8-dd068c894564@grosbein.net> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:31:11 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT No description available. * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HGVFY1DnBz4dMh X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-Spam: Yes X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N CC'ing more knowledgeable developers. 25.09.2021 6:03, Peter Jeremy wrote: > I don't understand: > a) Why outgoing ICMP packets from firewall to VPS aren't going through > the IPSEC transport. > b) Why firewall is ignoring incoming IPSEC esp packets. > > Is anyone able to help? I know three main reasons that may prevent firewall+IPSec from working as expected: 1) for incoming packets: kernel could drop incoming packet withing ipsec code incrementing one of counters shown with "netstat -sp ipsec" command, so you should check it out first; 2) for both outgoing and incoming packets there could be processing order problem: packets processed first by pfil(9) framework (so pf/ipfw have a chance to do NAT etc.) and only then sent to ipsec(4) to transform (in FreeBSD 11 at least), not vice versa. 3) also read if_enc(4) manual page to make familiar with net.enc.out.* and net.enc.in.* sysctl family, as it may affect, too. If you do not use enc(4) pseudo-interface, make sure you changed defaults to: net.enc.in.ipsec_filter_mask=0 net.enc.out.ipsec_filter_mask=0 From nobody Sat Sep 25 13:06:55 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7393217DCFE3 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 13:07:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bu7cher@yandex.ru) Received: from forward501o.mail.yandex.net (forward501o.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1a2d::611]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGq1Q0yxmz4WBL; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 13:07:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bu7cher@yandex.ru) Received: from myt5-8352ee26fe0c.qloud-c.yandex.net (myt5-8352ee26fe0c.qloud-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c00:25a5:0:640:8352:ee26]) by forward501o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 41FDD45C492F; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:06:57 +0300 (MSK) Received: from myt6-9bdf92ffd111.qloud-c.yandex.net (myt6-9bdf92ffd111.qloud-c.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:c12:468a:0:640:9bdf:92ff]) by myt5-8352ee26fe0c.qloud-c.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id q1VWo6w2BF-6uDOtFFB; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:06:57 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1632575217; bh=haSsAzU+Mz8W1eyTTU0rpOSoCw3NjhMzx/j92yuMnmE=; h=In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:Date:References:To:Cc; b=aHWg+Zp/e489AI7cs+WWUSIDBQC3tjnNPj1w6aowz1rUWKGcN6mWfAn3Fo3c1T47W bg8rBsKM32bnAxHitcQwMyje66IZ9N5Yqo5Dke+lPsnuJ/7aUZkXim0p9C1yrvlc9g /0w5fz0CDiAorhTiK/O2dnG772VWeMFfLLp97lGc= Received: by myt6-9bdf92ffd111.qloud-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id uHsC8AjYJB-6utOAF3e; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:06:56 +0300 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client certificate not present) To: Eugene Grosbein , Peter Jeremy , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" References: <63369d6b-23f3-3d4e-4ff8-dd068c894564@grosbein.net> From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" Subject: Re: IPSEC problems with pf Message-ID: <88c23447-4733-80a2-cb59-f0720b4b836c@yandex.ru> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:06:55 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <63369d6b-23f3-3d4e-4ff8-dd068c894564@grosbein.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V0ztE45uJGVcruDR7YmDHwMvWDeTkV8AH" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HGq1Q0yxmz4WBL X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --V0ztE45uJGVcruDR7YmDHwMvWDeTkV8AH Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="SlsvOmUFeREmqktIoiWv2QCgH6FJhr4Zo"; protected-headers="v1" From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" To: Eugene Grosbein , Peter Jeremy , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" Message-ID: <88c23447-4733-80a2-cb59-f0720b4b836c@yandex.ru> Subject: Re: IPSEC problems with pf References: <63369d6b-23f3-3d4e-4ff8-dd068c894564@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <63369d6b-23f3-3d4e-4ff8-dd068c894564@grosbein.net> --SlsvOmUFeREmqktIoiWv2QCgH6FJhr4Zo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 25.09.2021 03:31, Eugene Grosbein =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > I know three main reasons that may prevent firewall+IPSec from working = as expected: >=20 > 1) for incoming packets: kernel could drop incoming packet withing ipse= c code > incrementing one of counters shown with "netstat -sp ipsec" command, > so you should check it out first; >=20 > 2) for both outgoing and incoming packets there could be processing ord= er problem: > packets processed first by pfil(9) framework (so pf/ipfw have a chance = to do NAT etc.) > and only then sent to ipsec(4) to transform (in FreeBSD 11 at least), n= ot vice versa. AFAIK, pf does not send packets to IPsec processing after NAT. You need to make translation after IPsec processing using the if_enc interface. >=20 > 3) also read if_enc(4) manual page to make familiar with net.enc.out.* = and net.enc.in.* sysctl family, > as it may affect, too. If you do not use enc(4) pseudo-interface, make = sure you changed defaults to: >=20 > net.enc.in.ipsec_filter_mask=3D0 > net.enc.out.ipsec_filter_mask=3D0 Another important variable that needs an attention is net.inet.ipsec.filtertunnel --=20 WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov --SlsvOmUFeREmqktIoiWv2QCgH6FJhr4Zo-- --V0ztE45uJGVcruDR7YmDHwMvWDeTkV8AH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsB5BAABCAAjFiEE5lkeG0HaFRbwybwAAcXqBBDIoXoFAmFPHvAFAwAAAAAACgkQAcXqBBDIoXoX Agf8DgojYjf9yuGe8HjGByBJAJEUh3ZPeeIg2tGJherPXIgfWQIJGU3ksvRAqo74U58TPTiLTAzp eel/LAX930hBG42PX7aJxsiSPjzbpXvDadrK7FJUsf1q4QmwPSaFzWSUo0xtq3GDCIGUDMAiwk0i MzPBaj3kXjU5j3LrnRGFv5VO+9/4C7IxWeaqdEC4odaktn1VPJgpoA00j25PzjSsSfoY/OaWuGZK 7RgEE68c5o7vchBq8zMJwLhQsocrsgefxn+LmQGAa+W1WPBGJpX33ac0/byFcGSVZGn0RCxDCahN 1O1E6xigdEubbxoLPO6FB8X/CEyesSbj1ZPVoAsW1Q== =uDp2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --V0ztE45uJGVcruDR7YmDHwMvWDeTkV8AH-- From nobody Sat Sep 25 16:25:17 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984EB17CEC16 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:25:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGvQ93ynqz4m2T; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:25:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.0.88] (unknown [195.64.148.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: avg/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13A59C3B3; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:25:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) From: Andriy Gapon To: Kristof Provost Cc: net@freebsd.org References: <980E0B5C-41CF-466E-AD45-7B93532199F4@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: page fault in pfioctl Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:25:17 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.14.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <980E0B5C-41CF-466E-AD45-7B93532199F4@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 13/06/2021 11:19, Kristof Provost wrote: > On 13 Jun 2021, at 09:41, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>Based on >> the panic message (page fault with non-sleepable locks held), it seems that >> the problem is with holding the lock across the copyout. Usually that >> won't panic, but if the destination happens to be paged out... And only >> with INVARIANTS, I guess... > > Oh right. Thanks. I’ve gotten bitten by that one before, but had clearly > garbage collected the memory. > > I’ll fix this one and check for others on Monday. > > I’ll also see of we can persuade copyout to always panic on this bug, not > just when the destination memory is actually paged out. That way we’ll catch > this in the regression tests in the future. I upgraded to the latest stable/13 and hit a fresh panic of the same type. This time it's in pf_getstatus() and it's a copyout while 'pf rulesets' lock is held. <118>Enabling pf Kernel page fault with the following non-sleepable locks held: shared rm pf rulesets (pf rulesets) r = 0 (0xffffffff85764020) locked @ /usr/devel/git/trant/sys/netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c:4945 stack backtrace: #0 0xffffffff808cb43d at witness_debugger+0x6d #1 0xffffffff808cc2ab at witness_warn+0x21b #2 0xffffffff80b567f1 at trap_pfault+0x71 #3 0xffffffff80b55df8 at trap+0x288 #4 0xffffffff80b56b59 at trap_check+0x29 #5 0xffffffff80b32298 at calltrap+0x8 #6 0xffffffff8574cae8 at pf_getstatus+0x548 #7 0xffffffff85747430 at pfioctl+0x2590 #8 0xffffffff8073854f at devfs_ioctl+0xcf #9 0xffffffff80bd8c26 at VOP_IOCTL_APV+0x96 #10 0xffffffff8094c424 at VOP_IOCTL+0x34 #11 0xffffffff80947600 at vn_ioctl+0xc0 #12 0xffffffff80738a3e at devfs_ioctl_f+0x1e #13 0xffffffff808cf8fb at fo_ioctl+0xb #14 0xffffffff808cf897 at kern_ioctl+0x1d7 #15 0xffffffff808cf60d at sys_ioctl+0x12d #16 0xffffffff80b57353 at syscallenter+0x163 #17 0xffffffff80b57025 at amd64_syscall+0x15 -- Andriy Gapon From nobody Sat Sep 25 16:34:07 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9C517CF98A for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:34:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGvcK4Sbtz4mrM; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:34:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.88] (unknown [195.64.148.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: avg/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A802C6A0; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:34:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) From: Andriy Gapon To: Kristof Provost Cc: net@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov References: <980E0B5C-41CF-466E-AD45-7B93532199F4@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: page fault in pfioctl Message-ID: <991e038b-69e2-0d37-908b-1625454a6264@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:34:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.14.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 25/09/2021 19:25, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 13/06/2021 11:19, Kristof Provost wrote: >> On 13 Jun 2021, at 09:41, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> Based on >>> the panic message (page fault with non-sleepable locks held), it seems that >>> the problem is with holding the lock across the copyout.  Usually that >>> won't panic, but if the destination happens to be paged out... And only >>> with INVARIANTS, I guess... >> >> Oh right. Thanks. I’ve gotten bitten by that one before, but had clearly >> garbage collected the memory. >> >> I’ll fix this one and check for others on Monday. >> >> I’ll also see of we can persuade copyout to always panic on this bug, not >> just when the destination memory is actually paged out. That way we’ll catch >> this in the regression tests in the future. > > I upgraded to the latest stable/13 and hit a fresh panic of the same type. > This time it's in pf_getstatus() and it's a copyout while 'pf rulesets' lock is > held. > > > <118>Enabling pf > Kernel page fault with the following non-sleepable locks held: > shared rm pf rulesets (pf rulesets) r = 0 (0xffffffff85764020) locked @ > /usr/devel/git/trant/sys/netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c:4945 > stack backtrace: > #0 0xffffffff808cb43d at witness_debugger+0x6d > #1 0xffffffff808cc2ab at witness_warn+0x21b > #2 0xffffffff80b567f1 at trap_pfault+0x71 > #3 0xffffffff80b55df8 at trap+0x288 > #4 0xffffffff80b56b59 at trap_check+0x29 > #5 0xffffffff80b32298 at calltrap+0x8 > #6 0xffffffff8574cae8 at pf_getstatus+0x548 > #7 0xffffffff85747430 at pfioctl+0x2590 > #8 0xffffffff8073854f at devfs_ioctl+0xcf > #9 0xffffffff80bd8c26 at VOP_IOCTL_APV+0x96 > #10 0xffffffff8094c424 at VOP_IOCTL+0x34 > #11 0xffffffff80947600 at vn_ioctl+0xc0 > #12 0xffffffff80738a3e at devfs_ioctl_f+0x1e > #13 0xffffffff808cf8fb at fo_ioctl+0xb > #14 0xffffffff808cf897 at kern_ioctl+0x1d7 > #15 0xffffffff808cf60d at sys_ioctl+0x12d > #16 0xffffffff80b57353 at syscallenter+0x163 > #17 0xffffffff80b57025 at amd64_syscall+0x15 Hmm, there is more: Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode cpuid = 2; apic id = 02 fault virtual address = 0x800a0e000 fault code = supervisor write data, page not present instruction pointer = 0x20:0xffffffff80b52e8a stack pointer = 0x28:0xfffffe01b45d0150 frame pointer = 0x28:0xfffffe01b45d0150 code segment = base 0x0, limit 0xfffff, type 0x1b = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1 processor eflags = interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0 current process = 1436 (pfctl) trap number = 12 panic: page fault cpuid = 2 time = 1632573676 KDB: stack backtrace: db_trace_self_wrapper() at 0xffffffff805c9eeb = db_trace_self_wrapper+0x2b/frame 0xfffffe01b45cfd10 kdb_backtrace() at 0xffffffff808aafe7 = kdb_backtrace+0x37/frame 0xfffffe01b45cfdc0 vpanic() at 0xffffffff8086788c = vpanic+0x18c/frame 0xfffffe01b45cfe20 panic() at 0xffffffff808674a3 = panic+0x43/frame 0xfffffe01b45cfe80 trap_fatal() at 0xffffffff80b56725 = trap_fatal+0x375/frame 0xfffffe01b45cfee0 trap_pfault() at 0xffffffff80b56800 = trap_pfault+0x80/frame 0xfffffe01b45cff50 trap() at 0xffffffff80b55df8 = trap+0x288/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0060 trap_check() at 0xffffffff80b56b59 = trap_check+0x29/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0080 calltrap() at 0xffffffff80b32298 = calltrap+0x8/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0080 --- trap 0xc, rip = 0xffffffff80b52e8a, rsp = 0xfffffe01b45d0150, rbp = 0xfffffe01b45d0150 --- copyout_nosmap_std() at 0xffffffff80b52e8a = copyout_nosmap_std+0x15a/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0150 pf_getstatus() at 0xffffffff8574cae8 = pf_getstatus+0x548/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0480 pfioctl() at 0xffffffff85747430 = pfioctl+0x2590/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0930 devfs_ioctl() at 0xffffffff8073854f = devfs_ioctl+0xcf/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0990 VOP_IOCTL_APV() at 0xffffffff80bd8c26 = VOP_IOCTL_APV+0x96/frame 0xfffffe01b45d09b0 VOP_IOCTL() at 0xffffffff8094c424 = VOP_IOCTL+0x34/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0a00 vn_ioctl() at 0xffffffff80947600 = vn_ioctl+0xc0/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0af0 devfs_ioctl_f() at 0xffffffff80738a3e = devfs_ioctl_f+0x1e/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0b10 fo_ioctl() at 0xffffffff808cf8fb = fo_ioctl+0xb/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0b20 kern_ioctl() at 0xffffffff808cf897 = kern_ioctl+0x1d7/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0b80 sys_ioctl() at 0xffffffff808cf60d = sys_ioctl+0x12d/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0c50 syscallenter() at 0xffffffff80b57353 = syscallenter+0x163/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0ca0 amd64_syscall() at 0xffffffff80b57025 = amd64_syscall+0x15/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0d30 fast_syscall_common() at 0xffffffff80b32bab = fast_syscall_common+0xf8/frame 0xfffffe01b45d0d30 --- syscall (54, FreeBSD ELF64, sys_ioctl), rip = 0x80042adaa, rsp = 0x7fffffffe5f8, rbp = 0x7fffffffe650 --- Uptime: 1m10s Dumping 1462 out of 32644 MB:..2%..11%..21%..31%..41%..51%..61%..71%..81%..91% Unfortunately kgdb itself crashes when trying to examine the dump. I think it's strange that copyout_nosmap_std() crashes with a page fault apparently when writing to a userland address. -- Andriy Gapon From nobody Sat Sep 25 16:34:42 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B6017CFAD7 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:34:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGvd227ZGz4nF1; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:34:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.codepro.be", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kp) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16CDBBCEE; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:34:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: by venus.codepro.be (Postfix, authenticated sender kp) id E1F474182D; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 18:34:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Kristof Provost To: Andriy Gapon Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: page fault in pfioctl Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 18:34:42 +0200 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5818) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <980E0B5C-41CF-466E-AD45-7B93532199F4@freebsd.org> List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 25 Sep 2021, at 18:25, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 13/06/2021 11:19, Kristof Provost wrote: >> On 13 Jun 2021, at 09:41, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> Based on >>> the panic message (page fault with non-sleepable locks held), it seem= s that >>> the problem is with holding the lock across the copyout. Usually tha= t >>> won't panic, but if the destination happens to be paged out... And on= ly >>> with INVARIANTS, I guess... >> >> Oh right. Thanks. I=E2=80=99ve gotten bitten by that one before, but h= ad clearly >> garbage collected the memory. >> >> I=E2=80=99ll fix this one and check for others on Monday. >> >> I=E2=80=99ll also see of we can persuade copyout to always panic on th= is bug, not >> just when the destination memory is actually paged out. That way we=E2= =80=99ll catch >> this in the regression tests in the future. > > I upgraded to the latest stable/13 and hit a fresh panic of the same ty= pe. > This time it's in pf_getstatus() and it's a copyout while 'pf rulesets'= lock is held. > I believe that=E2=80=99s fixed by https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/sys= /netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c?id=3Dcb13059663e455b3fc69c293dadec53c164490dc Best regards, Kristof From nobody Sat Sep 25 16:38:11 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235D517D067F for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:38:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGvj10ZYlz4p95; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:38:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.0.88] (unknown [195.64.148.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: avg/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94527C72E; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:38:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) From: Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: page fault in pfioctl To: Kristof Provost Cc: net@freebsd.org References: <980E0B5C-41CF-466E-AD45-7B93532199F4@freebsd.org> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:38:11 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.14.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 25/09/2021 19:34, Kristof Provost wrote: > On 25 Sep 2021, at 18:25, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> On 13/06/2021 11:19, Kristof Provost wrote: >>> On 13 Jun 2021, at 09:41, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> Based on >>>> the panic message (page fault with non-sleepable locks held), it seems that >>>> the problem is with holding the lock across the copyout. Usually that >>>> won't panic, but if the destination happens to be paged out... And only >>>> with INVARIANTS, I guess... >>> >>> Oh right. Thanks. I’ve gotten bitten by that one before, but had clearly >>> garbage collected the memory. >>> >>> I’ll fix this one and check for others on Monday. >>> >>> I’ll also see of we can persuade copyout to always panic on this bug, not >>> just when the destination memory is actually paged out. That way we’ll catch >>> this in the regression tests in the future. >> >> I upgraded to the latest stable/13 and hit a fresh panic of the same type. >> This time it's in pf_getstatus() and it's a copyout while 'pf rulesets' lock is held. >> > I believe that’s fixed by https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/sys/netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c?id=cb13059663e455b3fc69c293dadec53c164490dc Thank you for the pointer! I believe it should help with the witness warning. Still not sure what's going on with copyout_nosmap_std(). -- Andriy Gapon From nobody Sat Sep 25 16:43:35 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090BF17D144D for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:43:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGvqD6vnJz4q7h; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:43:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.88] (unknown [195.64.148.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: avg/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C51DCA61; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:43:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Subject: Re: page fault in pfioctl From: Andriy Gapon To: Kristof Provost Cc: net@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov References: <980E0B5C-41CF-466E-AD45-7B93532199F4@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <25ec0404-4fc8-c8c5-3916-20c8e094aa62@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:43:35 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.14.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 25/09/2021 19:38, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 25/09/2021 19:34, Kristof Provost wrote: >> On 25 Sep 2021, at 18:25, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> On 13/06/2021 11:19, Kristof Provost wrote: >>>> On 13 Jun 2021, at 09:41, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>>> Based on >>>>> the panic message (page fault with non-sleepable locks held), it seems that >>>>> the problem is with holding the lock across the copyout.  Usually that >>>>> won't panic, but if the destination happens to be paged out... And only >>>>> with INVARIANTS, I guess... >>>> >>>> Oh right. Thanks. I’ve gotten bitten by that one before, but had clearly >>>> garbage collected the memory. >>>> >>>> I’ll fix this one and check for others on Monday. >>>> >>>> I’ll also see of we can persuade copyout to always panic on this bug, not >>>> just when the destination memory is actually paged out. That way we’ll catch >>>> this in the regression tests in the future. >>> >>> I upgraded to the latest stable/13 and hit a fresh panic of the same type. >>> This time it's in pf_getstatus() and it's a copyout while 'pf rulesets' lock >>> is held. >>> >> I believe that’s fixed by >> https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/sys/netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c?id=cb13059663e455b3fc69c293dadec53c164490dc >> > > Thank you for the pointer! > I believe it should help with the witness warning. > Still not sure what's going on with copyout_nosmap_std(). > Ah, sorry for the noise, trap_fatal() is exactly because the witness did not like the fault. -- Andriy Gapon From nobody Sat Sep 25 19:30:50 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC9A17DF8EB for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:30:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HGzXC17tGz3Kyh for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:30:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 073307E61 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:30:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18PJUot9079396 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:30:50 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18PJUo5v079395 for net@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:30:50 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 235341] em(4): No network traffic after upgrade from 11.2 to 12.0-RELEASE Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:30:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: IntelNetworking, needs-qa, regression X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: kbowling@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: kbowling@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D235341 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Bowling --- (In reply to kaan from comment #3) Any luck with your upgrade? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.= From nobody Sun Sep 26 00:53:15 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AA117DA7E1 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 00:53:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mx0.gentlemail.de (mx0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HH6hN16nLz4R9f; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 00:53:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mh0.gentlemail.de (ezra.dcm1.omnilan.net [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800:0:0:0:0:a135]) by mx0.gentlemail.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18Q0rGUB037930; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:53:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) X-Authentication-Warning: mx0.gentlemail.de: Host ezra.dcm1.omnilan.net [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800:0:0:0:0:a135] claimed to be mh0.gentlemail.de Received: from titan.inop.mo1.omnilan.net (s1.omnilan.de [217.91.127.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mh0.gentlemail.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B2D2EAA; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:53:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: git: 1a72c3d76aea - stable/13 - e1000: always enable PCSD when RSS hashing [Was: TCP6 regression for MTU path on stable/13] From: Harry Schmalzbauer To: Kevin Bowling References: <8e4f78e5-0717-8002-5364-44df5c8d7dad@omnilan.de> <36d9d998-c484-a4f6-6c62-c6ec103aeb33@yandex.ru> <14f7348c-a11f-9ae8-8a4e-77e0333ba478@omnilan.de> Organization: OmniLAN Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" , "net@FreeBSD.org" Message-ID: <57df3182-a7ec-112c-c8d8-a8faa21a97a8@omnilan.de> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:53:15 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <14f7348c-a11f-9ae8-8a4e-77e0333ba478@omnilan.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HH6hN16nLz4R9f X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@omnilan.de designates 2a00:e10:2800::a130 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@omnilan.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.31 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[omnilan.de]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.99)[0.994]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[yandex.ru,freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:61157, ipnet:2a00:e10:2800::/38, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Am 13.09.2021 um 13:18 schrieb Harry Schmalzbauer: > Am 13.09.2021 um 12:37 schrieb Andrey V. Elsukov: >> 12.09.2021 14:12, Harry Schmalzbauer пишет: >>> Will try to further track it down, but in case anybody has an idea, >>> what >>> change during the last view months in stable/13 could have caused this >>> real-world problem regarding resulting TCP6 throughput, I'm happy to >>> start testing at that point. >> >> Hi, >> >> Take a look at: >> >>    https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=255749 >>    https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248005 >> >> does the problem described in these PRs is the same as yours? > > Hi, thank you very much for your attention! > Most likely these are unrelated to the regression I'm suffering from, > because these affect 13-release and earlier. > Mine arose during the last months. > And it seems not to be a jumbo frame problem. : > Hope to get back to you soon with more info. Since the setup was hard to replicate, it took some time. Here's the commit, causing the heavy IPv6 performance drop with Intel Powerville and IPv6: > The branch stable/13 has been updated by kbowling (ports committer): > > URL: > https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=1a72c3d76aeafe4422ff20f81c4142efb983b7d7 > > commit 1a72c3d76aeafe4422ff20f81c4142efb983b7d7 > Author:     Kevin Bowling > AuthorDate: 2021-08-16 17:17:34 +0000 > Commit:     Kevin Bowling > CommitDate: 2021-08-23 16:23:43 +0000 > >     e1000: always enable PCSD when RSS hashing > >     To enable RSS hashing in the NIC, the PCSD bit must be set. > >     By default, this is never set when RXCSUM is disabled - which >     causes problems higher up in the stack. > >     While here improve the RXCSUM flag assignments when enabling or >     disabling IFCAP_RXCSUM. > >     See also: > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2020-May/076148.html > >     Reviewed by:    markj, Franco Fichtner , >                     Stephan de Wit >     Obtained from:  OPNsense >     MFC after:      1 week >     Differential Revision:  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D31501 >     Co-authored-by: Stephan de Wit >     Co-authored-by: Franco Fichtner > >     (cherry picked from commit 69e8e8ea3d4be9da6b5bc904a444b51958128ff5) > : Noticed and successfully (double-{a8446d412+f72cdea25}) falsified with i350 Powerville, device=0x1521. *Reverting git: 1a72c3d76aea against today's stable/13(-f72cdea25-dirty) sloves the issue, which seems to be IPv6 related only.* (kernel  a8446d412 from 21/09/25 shows issue, reverting this commit solves it with old kernel too) Very brief check against IPv4 on identical paths seems to be unaffected, but I can't guarantee since v4 isn't in use (where I 1st noticed and suffer from) and I just did one comparing in order to narrow down (asymmetric FIB setup regarding inet and inet6). What this made complicated: ng_brige(4), mpd5/pppoe,ppt,bhyve are involved as well (and vlan(4), lagg(4) and vtnet(4), etc.), but it seems to be just a e1000 driver issue. There were many changes/iprovements/cleanups between July and September, but I tracked it down as root cause for my IPv6 issue (performance dropping from 33MB/s to <=0.3MB/s). That beeing said, it was hard to find the time replicating the setup, and I have nothing for a solution.  Haven't semantically checked anything yet and didn't do any tests beside my single IPv6 performance test.  Contrary to my first suspicion, at least in my clone-lab, it isn't MTU/jumbo frame related, just plain e1000/i350 IPv6 regression. Happy to test anything, can test-drive swiftly but without further diag during work days. Thanks, -harry From nobody Sun Sep 26 02:59:23 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194DC17E5CC0 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:59:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevin.bowling@kev009.com) Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HH9V602Btz4d1D for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:59:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevin.bowling@kev009.com) Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id z5so15169596ybj.2 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:59:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kev009.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PTSoLfPsswrdlX+cLUPvA9dfZZKG+/s3lH10RB55Zw4=; b=hWEgUeOYnuy6ORD8zgpP2TOCG4p/RiOY8FKu/jibJ6nzSFclMOQuBXHDGvoyfzed5Y PDeIjObTMr05ZNfw1k4Uozo79KKZpwTQjQ1SGdK/T/+u6xErme3SmWxgLHlqb3zx2CjR crK6MjB6HY+rzo6mF/H7VL7xNR237Rw//Yvb8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PTSoLfPsswrdlX+cLUPvA9dfZZKG+/s3lH10RB55Zw4=; b=qCnPB++GCcv5j9i3VvJfI9HZ7z4IM9Miseij9kWO4o/aaS+GW06JMWqJxYT3USOEXZ ly6vf15h6uVjnNt02D1wGC1XVhg/3QxUUiiqpAszHkT98nFWy6m7E1M9ApoQM63FP+L0 TVJSAWl/8bsRv+b7PlGJ/NrFtUy2IBF5Cf7pBab2mzFRWgB3YsEC8MP6Ct4PbLDJEsyg AeO/FJQo1Kdp5mSCxqW+GFps+LIdPDuJqkS5Xj4loAzclruvuhSCb+UfXB2BVa+rrzYS Meka98l8P5CaS/cIBb0M2fm7K24FyN9gOH5zzfA0PkqVHv24+wK0xYFuvacaD5pqYBMl QfQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uTktMAr2C5E/9b/glYFDmsWXFJWlzEJw1gH8txm6FYoJ4uF80 y0xuXSHNv5jMekU0VER0kart1DUrwQ3XqKbhU8lGDQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyEPDMoVLJOmmRiDvuKn5DfhYWXn99Q9sUqf0A6vH14ByDN61I0eH8DaFOFqOGrl8daKLsltNkaMmCtJI/vaA4= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:cd0:: with SMTP id e16mr35958ybr.533.1632625174903; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:59:34 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8e4f78e5-0717-8002-5364-44df5c8d7dad@omnilan.de> <36d9d998-c484-a4f6-6c62-c6ec103aeb33@yandex.ru> <14f7348c-a11f-9ae8-8a4e-77e0333ba478@omnilan.de> <57df3182-a7ec-112c-c8d8-a8faa21a97a8@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <57df3182-a7ec-112c-c8d8-a8faa21a97a8@omnilan.de> From: Kevin Bowling Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:59:23 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: git: 1a72c3d76aea - stable/13 - e1000: always enable PCSD when RSS hashing [Was: TCP6 regression for MTU path on stable/13] To: Harry Schmalzbauer Cc: Kevin Bowling , "Andrey V. Elsukov" , "net@FreeBSD.org" , stephan.dewt@yahoo.co.uk, Franco Fichtner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HH9V602Btz4d1D X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 5:53 PM Harry Schmalzbauer wro= te: > > Am 13.09.2021 um 13:18 schrieb Harry Schmalzbauer: > > Am 13.09.2021 um 12:37 schrieb Andrey V. Elsukov: > >> 12.09.2021 14:12, Harry Schmalzbauer =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > >>> Will try to further track it down, but in case anybody has an idea, > >>> what > >>> change during the last view months in stable/13 could have caused thi= s > >>> real-world problem regarding resulting TCP6 throughput, I'm happy to > >>> start testing at that point. > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Take a look at: > >> > >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D255749 > >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D248005 > >> > >> does the problem described in these PRs is the same as yours? > > > > Hi, thank you very much for your attention! > > Most likely these are unrelated to the regression I'm suffering from, > > because these affect 13-release and earlier. > > Mine arose during the last months. > > And it seems not to be a jumbo frame problem. > : > > Hope to get back to you soon with more info. > > > Since the setup was hard to replicate, it took some time. > Here's the commit, causing the heavy IPv6 performance drop with Intel > Powerville and IPv6: > > > The branch stable/13 has been updated by kbowling (ports committer): > > > > URL: > > https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=3D1a72c3d76aeafe4422ff20f81c414= 2efb983b7d7 > > > > commit 1a72c3d76aeafe4422ff20f81c4142efb983b7d7 > > Author: Kevin Bowling > > AuthorDate: 2021-08-16 17:17:34 +0000 > > Commit: Kevin Bowling > > CommitDate: 2021-08-23 16:23:43 +0000 > > > > e1000: always enable PCSD when RSS hashing > > > > To enable RSS hashing in the NIC, the PCSD bit must be set. > > > > By default, this is never set when RXCSUM is disabled - which > > causes problems higher up in the stack. > > > > While here improve the RXCSUM flag assignments when enabling or > > disabling IFCAP_RXCSUM. > > > > See also: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2020-May/076148.htm= l > > > > Reviewed by: markj, Franco Fichtner , > > Stephan de Wit > > Obtained from: OPNsense > > MFC after: 1 week > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D31501 > > Co-authored-by: Stephan de Wit > > Co-authored-by: Franco Fichtner > > > > (cherry picked from commit 69e8e8ea3d4be9da6b5bc904a444b51958128ff5= ) > > : > > Noticed and successfully (double-{a8446d412+f72cdea25}) falsified with > i350 Powerville, device=3D0x1521. > *Reverting git: 1a72c3d76aea against today's stable/13(-f72cdea25-dirty) > sloves the issue, which seems to be IPv6 related only.* > (kernel a8446d412 from 21/09/25 shows issue, reverting this commit > solves it with old kernel too) > > Very brief check against IPv4 on identical paths seems to be unaffected, > but I can't guarantee since v4 isn't in use (where I 1st noticed and > suffer from) and I just did one comparing in order to narrow down > (asymmetric FIB setup regarding inet and inet6). > > What this made complicated: ng_brige(4), mpd5/pppoe,ppt,bhyve are > involved as well (and vlan(4), lagg(4) and vtnet(4), etc.), but it seems > to be just a e1000 driver issue. > There were many changes/iprovements/cleanups between July and September, > but I tracked it down as root cause for my IPv6 issue (performance > dropping from 33MB/s to <=3D0.3MB/s). > > > That beeing said, it was hard to find the time replicating the setup, > and I have nothing for a solution. Haven't semantically checked > anything yet and didn't do any tests beside my single IPv6 performance > test. Contrary to my first suspicion, at least in my clone-lab, it > isn't MTU/jumbo frame related, just plain e1000/i350 IPv6 regression. > > > Happy to test anything, can test-drive swiftly but without further diag > during work days. > > Thanks, > -harry Thanks for the report. I added Franco and Stephen to the cc for visibility= . Nothing is immediately jumping out at me, in a private email Harry tried not setting 'rxcsum |=3D E1000_RXCSUM_TUOFL | E1000_RXCSUM_IPOFL' which was an intentional behavior change but it did not improve this IPv6 use. I will need to do some document reading. Regards, Kevin From nobody Sun Sep 26 03:12:05 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F84D17E74E2 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 03:12:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) Received: from vtr.rulingia.com (vtr.rulingia.com [IPv6:2001:19f0:5801:ebe:5400:1ff:fe53:30fd]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA512 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "vtr.rulingia.com", Issuer "R3" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HH9mj4Ch1z4gCZ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 03:12:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) Received: from server.rulingia.com (2001-44b8-31fc-0d00-9de3-3c03-e973-46a7.static.ipv6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:31fc:d00:9de3:3c03:e973:46a7]) by vtr.rulingia.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18Q3CBwZ061100 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:12:17 +1000 (AEST) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 vtr.rulingia.com 18Q3CBwZ061100 X-Bogosity: Ham, spamicity=0.000000 Received: from server.rulingia.com (localhost.rulingia.com [127.0.0.1]) by server.rulingia.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18Q3C5ec025442 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:12:05 +1000 (AEST) (envelope-from peter@server.rulingia.com) Received: (from peter@localhost) by server.rulingia.com (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 18Q3C5f2025441; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:12:05 +1000 (AEST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:12:05 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" Cc: Eugene Grosbein , freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" Subject: Re: IPSEC problems with pf Message-ID: References: <63369d6b-23f3-3d4e-4ff8-dd068c894564@grosbein.net> <88c23447-4733-80a2-cb59-f0720b4b836c@yandex.ru> List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WkinrWASy6+4Arsx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88c23447-4733-80a2-cb59-f0720b4b836c@yandex.ru> X-PGP-Key: http://www.rulingia.com/keys/peter.pgp X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HH9mj4Ch1z4gCZ X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --WkinrWASy6+4Arsx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for all the responses, they provided useful pointers. I've discovered that the problem was at least partially my misunderstanding of the way iked works (and my failure to mention some important differences between my working and non-working configurations). Note that I'm trying to configure IPSEC in transport, not tunnel mode. I think some of the responses assumed that I was using tunnel mode. In the following: Host ---- firewall =3D=3D=3D=3D(internet)=3D=3D=3D=3D VPS '=3D=3D' indicates the path I want as an IPSEC (esp) transport - I expect that VPS thinks it's talking to "firewall" and is unaware of the (NAT'd) connection between firewall and Host. My firewall is running 12.2, whereas the other systems I was testing with were 13 or 14. 12.x doesn't support extended sequence numbers. I had assumed the message: iked[3516]: pfkey_sa: kernel has no support for extended sequence numbers (= ESN) was a warning and it would negotiate down. I've worked out that iked doesn't actually negotiate but instead initiates a SA based solely on its local configuration so that's actually a fatal error that prevented the SA being setup in one direction. Once I added "childsa noesn" at the remote (13.x) end, I got bidirectional IPSEC transport setup. On 2021-Sep-25 16:06:55 +0300, "Andrey V. Elsukov" wrot= e: >25.09.2021 03:31, Eugene Grosbein =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> I know three main reasons that may prevent firewall+IPSec from working a= s expected: >>=20 >> 1) for incoming packets: kernel could drop incoming packet withing ipsec= code >> incrementing one of counters shown with "netstat -sp ipsec" command, >> so you should check it out first; And "netstat -sp esp". I also found /usr/src/tools/tools/crypto/ipsecstats= =2Ec dumps all the ipsec-related counters from the kernel. >> 2) for both outgoing and incoming packets there could be processing orde= r problem: >> packets processed first by pfil(9) framework (so pf/ipfw have a chance t= o do NAT etc.) >> and only then sent to ipsec(4) to transform (in FreeBSD 11 at least), no= t vice versa. > >AFAIK, pf does not send packets to IPsec processing after NAT. You need >to make translation after IPsec processing using the if_enc interface. I'm reasonably confident that this is my remaining problem and am working on better understanding the interactions between IPSEC and pfil(9). >> 3) also read if_enc(4) manual page to make familiar with net.enc.out.* a= nd net.enc.in.* sysctl family, >> as it may affect, too. If you do not use enc(4) pseudo-interface, make s= ure you changed defaults to: >>=20 >> net.enc.in.ipsec_filter_mask=3D0 >> net.enc.out.ipsec_filter_mask=3D0 I wasn't using enc(4) and don't have it loaded. enc(4) reads like it is intended for ESP tunnel mode, rather than transport mode. On the offchance that it would help, I tried loading it and experimenteng with the various filter mask options but it didn't help. >Another important variable that needs an attention is >net.inet.ipsec.filtertunnel I discovered that but, unfortunately, it seems to only apply to inbound (from the Internet) packets. At this point: * I can exchange encrypted packets locally between firewall and VPS * Encrypted packets sent from VPS will arrive at Host (once net.inet.ipsec.filtertunnel is set). * Packets sent from Host to VPS get sent unencrypted over the Internet. I'm confident that the last point is because the IPSEC processing preceeds the pfil processing on outbound packets, so they aren't seen as eligible because IPSEC is seeing the internal, rather than external, address. --=20 Peter Jeremy --WkinrWASy6+4Arsx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEE7rKYbDBnHnTmXCJ+FqWXoOSiCzQFAmFP5QBfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEVF QjI5ODZDMzA2NzFFNzRFNjVDMjI3RTE2QTU5N0EwRTRBMjBCMzQACgkQFqWXoOSi CzRUOxAAj8lW+FgF+DDIeu2bx9FCT6RDkSqEAQmCQC+QakqofGgRCpQ/90V68Ltv 2psL7M1sJl+k2Cc7YdUZoEkN74itgIGi9mkb27qeKVAZdnk6XyZXUW0uVXN3G8zJ ountU5Vp9A/sKkT4AQbFalEIqwLfr26b3n4JkWt+BUUvjBYV5vlbbZUVG1OE0VV3 o4SJxe7H76Q9vtg655iUc7iecVjEDSS6VVbecLHW4+j90v1o7X8wHz9mT1fI0oXF ua8OvBcNSyn9lInbehxVV6bQwbRiGO1w175wMAk1eNsdGvf5BTtKuz6uxAnmUMiR QKyhijke16w2TvclMDS/tN+wuyAYs7FVY2TiWYuoKHgIFsky3SrVPbsO2Wzv3QyH U48U1BuRTyCmKjZDuRio+7/uNs6ToMQBn2K66LKplXaJH3drCsgAzJPMIkYk03MA 4QojEviy7SioVl0JRQzjVH4rd3hPco7wY7Zp6sIiw12qy5ZFD3Yzm/oFmMZZa2/W usK67uI8qobBQgi7Lkr+tZuG6BbjI1qG+Fz9wzBujv/0lUVnT72faPvOr5eFNr0h 2z+i0oGhUJeMSdC1EwPXX+Ub9vwofQgEZCCt8YZ7oF/xjrwjgds8SkapbvkGC0nx AYrHUfQVnMivJVdFg5tAsfW9W8N9W6Vw9NrqrOCKEcE+lWGlZoI= =GM0+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WkinrWASy6+4Arsx-- From eugen@grosbein.net Sun Sep 26 11:27:07 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CAD17CE093 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:27:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HHNln27Chz3lcx for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:27:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (root@eg.sd.rdtc.ru [62.231.161.221] (may be forged)) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 18QBRDh6064376 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:27:14 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: peter@rulingia.com Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18QBRDGC033385 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 26 Sep 2021 18:27:13 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: IPSEC problems with pf To: Peter Jeremy References: <63369d6b-23f3-3d4e-4ff8-dd068c894564@grosbein.net> <88c23447-4733-80a2-cb59-f0720b4b836c@yandex.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <1bd13e99-cd52-0e2b-35db-a74e6fb8026c@grosbein.net> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 18:27:07 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT No description available. * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HHNln27Chz3lcx X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N 26.09.2021 10:12, Peter Jeremy wrote: > I'm confident that the last point is because the IPSEC processing preceeds > the pfil processing on outbound packets, so they aren't seen as eligible > because IPSEC is seeing the internal, rather than external, address. I found it much suitable to keep IPSec transport mode but also create gif(4) tunnel between "firewal" and "VPS" with its own pair of internal IP addresses, so traffic can be encapsulated into the tunnel first and then encrypted. So it does not need to be NAT-ed. From nobody Sun Sep 26 14:28:37 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAC117DD27F for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:28:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HHSn202mwz4TWh for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:28:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1C861EE4A for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:28:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18QESbjZ026323 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:28:37 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18QESbNU026322 for net@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:28:37 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258732] TCP_MAXSEG does not work Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:28:37 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: linimon@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: assigned_to Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258732 Mark Linimon changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bugs@FreeBSD.org |net@FreeBSD.org --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Sun Sep 26 14:35:58 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D5C17DE558 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:35:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HHSxW549Dz4VdL for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:35:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B2A21EE61 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:35:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18QEZxlO031003 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:35:59 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18QEZxe1031002 for net@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:35:59 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258732] TCP_MAXSEG does not work Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:35:58 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: tuexen@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258732 Michael Tuexen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tuexen@freebsd.org --- Comment #2 from Michael Tuexen --- The current man page of tcp says for the TCP_MAXSEG socket option: By default, a sender- and receiver-TCP will negotiate among themselves to determine the maximum segment size to be used for each connection. The TCP_MAXSEG option allows the user to determine the result of this negotiati= on, and to reduce it if desired. Are you saying that the socket option does not work as described above? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Sun Sep 26 14:36:10 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1278D17DE74A for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:36:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HHSxj6yZ7z4W0J for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:36:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D09A51F242 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:36:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18QEa9gF031091 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:36:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18QEa9qJ031090 for net@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:36:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258732] [tcp] TCP_MAXSEG does not work Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:36:10 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: tuexen@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: short_desc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258732 Michael Tuexen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|TCP_MAXSEG does not work |[tcp] TCP_MAXSEG does not | |work --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.= From nobody Sun Sep 26 21:00:50 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3ED17D6637 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:00:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HHdTZ5hb4z50vc for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:00:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2776524726 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:00:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18QL0o1j058453 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:00:50 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from bugzilla@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 18QL0ojr058452 for net@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:00:50 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <202109262100.18QL0ojr058452@kenobi.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: bugzilla set sender to bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Problem reports for net@FreeBSD.org that need special attention Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:00:50 +0000 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="16326900501.30DADbdF3.56155" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: Y --16326900501.30DADbdF3.56155 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:00:50 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" To view an individual PR, use: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=(Bug Id). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users, which need special attention. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. Status | Bug Id | Description ------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------- In Progress | 221146 | [ixgbe] Problem with second laggport New | 204438 | setsockopt() handling of kern.ipc.maxsockbuf limi New | 213410 | [carp] service netif restart causes hang only whe Open | 7556 | ppp: sl_compress_init() will fail if called anyth Open | 166724 | if_re(4): watchdog timeout Open | 193452 | Dell PowerEdge 210 II -- Kernel panic bce (broadc Open | 200319 | Bridge+CARP crashes/freezes Open | 202510 | [CARP] advertisements sourced from CARP IP cause Open | 207261 | netmap: Doesn't do TX sync with kqueue Open | 222273 | igb(4): Kernel panic (fatal trap 12) due to netwo Open | 225438 | panic in6_unlink_ifa() due to race Open | 227720 | Kernel panic in ppp server Open | 230807 | if_alc(4): Driver not working for Killer Networki Open | 236888 | ppp daemon: Allow MTU to be overridden for PPPoE Open | 236983 | bnxt(4) VLAN not operational unless explicit "ifc Open | 237072 | netgraph(4): performance issue [on HardenedBSD]? Open | 237840 | Removed dummynet dependency on ipfw Open | 238324 | Add XG-C100C/AQtion AQC107 10GbE NIC driver Open | 238707 | Lock order reversal: rtentry vs "nd6 list" Open | 240944 | em(4): Crash with Intel 82571EB NIC with AMD Pile Open | 241106 | tun/ppp: panic: vm_fault: fault on nofault entry Open | 241162 | Panic in closefp() triggered by nginx (uwsgi with Open | 241191 | route flush panic with RADIX_MPATH Open | 243463 | ix0: Watchdog timeout Open | 247111 | pxeboot very slow with i219LM Open | 257709 | netinet6: Set net.inet6.icmp6.nodeinfo default to Open | 118111 | rc: network.subr Add MAC address based interface 27 problems total for which you should take action. --16326900501.30DADbdF3.56155--