Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:02:28 +0200
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To:        "net@FreeBSD.org" <net@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Mark Johnston <markj@FreeBSD.org>, Patrick Kelsey <pkelsey@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: vmxnet3: possible bug in vmxnet3_isc_rxd_pkt_get
Message-ID:  <c83c5315-ec2d-b3b9-2a6e-ec3de464542d@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <65d72f7d-5096-07ec-4e21-c6356be7e06f@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <0dbe63d0-3219-846d-4c58-0bf219f41634@FreeBSD.org> <65d72f7d-5096-07ec-4e21-c6356be7e06f@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19/11/2021 20:46, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> I think that this was the case and that I was able to find the corresponding 
> descriptors in the completion ring.
> 
> Please see https://people.freebsd.org/~avg/vmxnet3-fragment-overrun.txt
> 
> $54 is the SOP, it has qid of 6.
> It is followed by many fragments with qid 14 (there are 8 queues / queue sets) 
> and zero length.
> But not all of them are zero length, some have length of 4096, e.g. $77, $86, etc.
> $124 is the last fragment, its has eop = 1 and error = 1.
> So, there are 71 fragments in total.
> 
> So, it is clear that VMWare produced 71 segments for a single packet before 
> giving up on it.
> 
> I wonder why it did that.
> Perhaps it's a bug, perhaps it does not count zero-length segments against the 
> limit, maybe something else.
> 
> In any case, it happens.


This is what I am currently testing at work: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33189
So far so good.

> Finally, the packet looks interesting: udp = 0, tcp = 0, ipcsum_ok = 0, ipv6 = 
> 0, ipv4 = 0.  I wonder what kind of a packet it could be -- being rather large 
> and not an IP packet.


-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c83c5315-ec2d-b3b9-2a6e-ec3de464542d>