From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 1 04:21:09 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4371716A417 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 04:21:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1035013C46E for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 04:21:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k17so3448526waf for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:21:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=H33YEHt+/Zom9hV0/wcspK5sWFhAZ+6UcnRND9mRuUU=; b=bK/y1ujYYr4JzWJwoDwIcE4cNLV9tXe2rutxzAZHBtezuuouz9zmDVz3jjOEC+RgPTeOuHEKvNQAEm7D7rorqPXhzvwxjEZeyLwqPWScdozru1xb+wKwm7SiWukvgNb0+xz+evIF7L68SvTL1+toBC7djrtsMCVgDTYNuwmQKI4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=St4rTYGvtgIyfEtxXXSxDfENJvPkr61cgDbOtYOFxI4dRXaioP9PAc4zI5kFt6WuA5b3A9QVwiM8vMUqxfkpCvMJSowJhl6PZwrG47KCUSX3WFwGXOPBCcHA9wGm4VLLpTvV9Arm9WBPr21s90csCQJeWwjOPXqxLsih85oOdsA= Received: by 10.114.78.1 with SMTP id a1mr70249wab.1196482867492; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:21:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m24sm2462276waf.2007.11.30.20.21.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id lB14K2GY023862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:20:02 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id lB14K1uY023861; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:20:01 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:20:01 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: remko@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20071201042001.GB23527@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <200711301904.lAUJ4fqu067304@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200711301904.lAUJ4fqu067304@freefall.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/106438: hme0: Interface unable to do tx and rx checksumming when using ipfilter. X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 04:21:09 -0000 On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:04:41PM +0000, remko@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Old Synopsis: [ipfilter] keep state does not seem to allow replies in on spar64 (and maybe others) > New Synopsis: hme0: Interface unable to do tx and rx checksumming when using ipfilter. > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net > Responsible-Changed-By: remko > Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Nov 30 19:03:15 UTC 2007 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Reassign to -net, this seems like a problem with the hme driver > I can reproduce this on 8-CURRENT on my sparc64, after issueing > a ifconfig hme0 -rxcsum and -txcsum the problem vanished and > I could connect again (ipfilter stopped the packets since they > had bad data included). > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=106438 I didn't know hme(4) have checksum offload related issues. When I tried the same rule as PR I also noticed that Rx UDP packet was dropped. However I couldn't reproduce it with pf. You can easily use identical rule with small modification(flags S/SA instead of flags S). I'm not familiar with ipf internals so I'm not sure what caused the issue. Given that pf works well I guess there would be somthing in ipf that needs more attention. Remko, would you retry it with pf on sparc64? -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon