From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Sep 18 06:20:10 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE95F2953 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46Y8wV47yzz3Njx for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 8E229F2951; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEF1F2950 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 +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) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46Y8wV3FLZz3Njw for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EE1520D09 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 +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 x8I6KAVh014618 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x8I6KAre014614 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 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: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 240658] iflib: Some if_igb(4) devices don't recognize/report carrier loss. Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:09 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: bugzilla.freebsd@omnilan.de 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 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:20:10 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D240658 Bug ID: 240658 Summary: iflib: Some if_igb(4) devices don't recognize/report carrier loss. Product: Base System Version: 12.0-STABLE Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Many People Priority: --- Component: kern Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: bugzilla.freebsd@omnilan.de Hello, reported back in May 2018 with a Clarkville MAC: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2018-May/050497.html Currently I see this again in 12.1-pro with Powerville (i211), while other if_igb(4) NICs are not affected (i350). I don't have a i217 handy to verify if this bug reoccured, or if my "not reproducable anymore" was simply wrong. Can anybody remember when/who worked on that issue? This is a major issue, since if_lagg(4) clones depend on the link state information and pulling a cable leads to interrupted communication =E2=80= =93 the opposite of what if_lagg(4) should provide! i211 is a widely used on-board server nic, so most likely many were affected by this issue if shipped with 12.1. Thanks, -Harry --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=