From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sat May 9 16:07:19 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@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 45BDC2EE39D for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 16:07:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gbergling@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm1-x343.google.com (mail-wm1-x343.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::343]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) 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 49KBsz14bfz42Kx; Sat, 9 May 2020 16:07:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gbergling@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm1-x343.google.com with SMTP id h4so13282403wmb.4; Sat, 09 May 2020 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=4aka0P5ITLNIFJHDPat5sEuzQaDc644DRJjTR7WT//k=; b=jOhKLbdA6fO7kYe/nIxegwKy+izHV3LoPZxtet9NH9TnCdh2oLR1MzL5JXHY3+zIFF 6cnBiuWkfRdIGb+1/1NONyf7/yjHmjEV5VnGoBIjVkiGsy472qFJoy5Cl1NFLni+Mneb +a51EeKptnvBY8sI8DGq//GMsAGZ91nC07WsQzCcUkZu/jvDftupo1UYoKCVNwxUyb4J E+P4OYLLtoiU1n83uWw/gTj0bBRmHXIgpCPFMe/EaUonfi6SON3mcuymE3ACxHg9RZib NA8hsUNPK0iEtAqU5YcdUlBzBagyHPlCax6y7S2QB8XMNrFpgGBPMdX0iSMdyfQKmH+h L6fw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubSGKPooHCeUkx9A3tRnXuhgK0F53cpBfvdt2QV/dQggWgqJOWE z8ElyRuCsoQcjoUZk8txiqcZJcU+ X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJ5f6uVvLDB4AtdcV1SKLxzckfh3lwyu5m3CjlngQi4J9sq4J4vGLTA6Jqt/9o1lmqoaC9EBg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1:: with SMTP id g1mr21556944wmc.142.1589040437466; Sat, 09 May 2020 09:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lion.0xfce3.net (p4FD3AF72.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.211.175.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 18sm6100340wmj.19.2020.05.09.09.07.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 09 May 2020 09:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Gordon Bergling Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 18:07:14 +0200 From: Gordon Bergling To: Michael Tuexen Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT , david@catwhisker.org Subject: Re: Error loading tcp_bbr kernel module Message-ID: <20200509160714.GA38490@lion.0xfce3.net> References: <20200509121851.GA59530@lion.0xfce3.net> <24D28CC3-AA45-412F-AF3D-9697A36FCB8D@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Url: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE amd64 X-Host-Uptime: 5:49PM up 1 day, 1:18, 3 users, load averages: 0.27, 0.19, 0.45 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49KBsz14bfz42Kx X-Spamd-Bar: ----- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.00 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.32 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 16:07:19 -0000 Hi Michael, On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 05:42:55PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > On 9. May 2020, at 16:25, Gordon Bergling wrote: > > I tried tcp_rack and tcp_bbr, since both are separate TCP stacks. I just posted the wrong error message. Both TCP stacks weren’t loadable as a kernel module with just the former mentioned build option. > > > > I currently have build running with both kernel options you mentioned. > > > > If the build is successful and I can change the default TCP stack to RACK and BBR I let you know. > That would be great. I have them running on my machines, but I might have missed something. > > > > Further I didn’t find any documentation within tcp(4) regarding RACK and BBR. Since I am about to enhance the manpages, I’ll extent tcp(4) about information about RACK and BBR, but this is a different topic. > > > Yes it is. And I would suggest to use separate man pages, a single one for each stack. > The the generic man page might refer to them... My first thoughts on this topic were about to extent tcp(4) and create links to tcp_rack(4) and tcp_bbr(4), but separate manpages maybe the way to go. I just have to investigate the respective details. I was once very deep into TCP/IP, while building perimeter firewalls with FreeBSD, but this was 20 years ago. I add you as a reviever for the differential once I have a rough cut for the manpages ready. Best regards, Gordon > >> Am 09.05.2020 um 14:37 schrieb Michael Tuexen : > >>> On 9. May 2020, at 14:18, Gordon Bergling wrote: > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> > >>> I build -CURRENT with WITH_EXTRA_TCP_STACKS=1, but I got the following error > >>> when I try to load for example tcp_bbr.ko. > >>> z > >>> kldload: an error occurred while loading module tcp_rack.ko. Please check dmesg(8) for more details. > >> This indicates that you want to load the RACK stack. > >> > >> Please note that you need for BBR and RACK: > >> options TCPHPTS > >> in the kernel config and in addition to that for RACK > >> options RATELIMIT > >> > >>> dmesg shows: > >>> > >>> KLD tcp_bbr.ko: depends on tcphpts - not available or version mismatch > >>> linker_load_file: /boot/kernel/tcp_bbr.ko - unsupported file type > >>> > >>> Any hints on solving the problem? > >>> > >>> The kernel config is GENERIC. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Gordon