From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 23 14:36:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9126C37B401; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25A243FB1; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:36:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (scratch.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.3]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h3NLZqXB030386; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200304232135.h3NLZqXB030386@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:35:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis To: wpaul@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20030423211722.D81BF37B401@hub.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fxp/82550 bug (was Re: IP fragmentation disagreement between current and stable) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:36:05 -0000 On 23 Apr, Bill Paul wrote: >> >> > It's starting to smell like a bug in the -current fxp driver. > > Or a bug in the current rev of the fxp chip. > > For the record, it helps to actually identify the chip you have, > either by looking at the output of pciconf -l, or by looking at the > chip and making a note of the part number. (I can understand why > some people don't bother to do this: Intel uses a special silkscreening > process that makes their part numbers nearly invisible.) fxp0@pci0:10:0: class=0x020000 card=0x00508086 chip=0x12298086 rev=0x0d hdr=0x00 82550GY L107SA39 > I my tests, I didn't observe any problems with larger fragments, > only with the one case outlined in this comment. I think I may have > mis-identified the actual bug here. I never noticed any "XX bytes > missing!" messages from tcpdump when I stumbled across this problem, > but I think that was because, with my test, even though I was sending > out only 1 byte of data, I was still generating a 64-byte ethernet > frame (64 bytes is the minimum frame size). So all I noticed was > that the IP header checksum was flagged as bad by the receiving > system. In case you haven't seen the entire thread, the problem only seems to occur if the packet is split across three or more fragments. Ping -s 3175 through 3177 break, as well as those sizes plus N*1480. I wish knew why these cards aren't visible to the BIOS or the OS after a power-on cold boot. It's pretty annoying to have to have to either hit the reset button or long on the console and reboot the OS. I haven't seen any other mention of this problem on the net. At least this isn't a bug in the fxp driver ...