From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Wed Jan 22 23:07:05 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@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 B26E9221965 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 +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 4831J94NL4z4fqX for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 9604D221962; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: virtualization@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 94AE1221961 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 +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 4831J93RyMz4fqV for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 +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 71F8C51E0 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 +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 00MN75Q8042982 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 00MN756O042981 for virtualization@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 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: virtualization@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 215737] [bhyve] utilizing virtio-net truncates jumbo frames at 4084 bytes length Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:04 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: misc X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: vmaffione@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: virtualization@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:07:05 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D215737 Vincenzo Maffione changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vmaffione@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #19 from Vincenzo Maffione --- If I'm not mistaken if_vtnet with jumbo frames should work even if the host does not support rx mergeable buffers... if that doesn't work I would be inclined to think that this particular situation is not supported by the dr= iver (IOW 64KB packets are not handled). Can somebody test it again with the stable/11 code? And yes, currently rx mergeable buffers are advertised by the host only when the vale net backend is used (for both if_vtnet and e1000). However, now that I think about that, rx mergeable buffers is not something that actually depends on the net backend, so if we advertise them in any ca= se (e.g., also with the tap backend), things should magically work. I'll test = this theory in the next days. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=