> Subject: Re: ivshmem-net issue > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 01:28:32 +0000 > Peng Fan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: ivshmem-net issue > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:08:28 +0000 > > > Peng Fan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > > > > When booting inmate Linux, I have ivshmem-net configured. In root > > > > cell it shows as eth2. > > > > > > > > I monitor system network, and see eth2 is assigned a random > > > > address. > > > > > > This is not "random", this is where some dhcp-clients end up when > > > they do not receive an answer to their requests. It is a fallback > > > when there is no proper DHCP server and machines still want to gain > > > an address to potentially communicate. (zeroconf APIPA) > > > > > > So it is worth checking the DHCP server to see why it did not hand > > > out an IP. Maybe because of the random MAC that Jan talked about. > > > > What do you mean DHCP server here? The eth2 is created by ivshmem-net, > > it has no physical connection. > > Well if you do not have a DHCP server in the other cell, you probably should > not be running a DHCP client. And looking at the address you are running one. > You probably do the whole setup on the kernel cmdline and that works until > userspace goes and configures that interface as well ... again. You have to > tell > userspace that this one interface is off limits and already configured. > How to do that depends an what is doing that, probably nm or systemd.
But seems we are not able to differentiate the ivshmem-net created eth2 and the physical interface eth1? Thanks, Peng. > > Henning > > > Thanks, > > Peng. > > > > Or maybe that > > > MAC was taken and the client did not have a valid lease for it. > > > > > > Henning > > > > > > > [ADDR]4: eth2 inet 169.254.232.89/16 brd 169.254.255.255 scope > > > > global eth2 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever [ROUTE]local > > > > 169.254.232.89 dev eth2 table local proto kernel scope host src > > > > 169.254.232.89 [ROUTE]broadcast 169.254.255.255 dev eth2 table > > > > local proto kernel scope link src 169.254.232.89 > > > > [ROUTE]169.254.0.0/16 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src > > > > 169.254.232.89 [ROUTE]broadcast 169.254.0.0 dev eth2 table local > > > > proto kernel scope link src 169.254.232.89 [ROUTE]default dev > > > > eth2 scope link > > > > > > > > > > > > And also in route table, it added two entries going through eth2, > > > > I not understand why it will add one entry that default use eth2 > > > > with gateway 0.0.0.0 #route Kernel IP routing table > > > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric > Ref > > > > Use Iface default 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U > 0 > > > > 0 0 eth2 default _gateway 0.0.0.0 > > > UG > > > > 0 0 0 eth1 10.193.102.0 0.0.0.0 > > > 255.255.255.0 > > > > U 0 0 0 eth1 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > > > 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 > > > > > > > > It added the eth2 route table and will break nfsroot if we using > > > > 10.193.108.x for nfsroot server, because it will match the 1st > > > > entry. > > > > > > > > This is not jailhouse hypervisor issue, I just not sure the eth2 > > > > behavior, it is systemd does that route change or we need look > > > > into ivshmem-net to avoid update route table when creating eth2? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Peng. > > > > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jailhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jailhouse-dev/DB6PR0402MB276057E778B7AE525825373F88BA9%40DB6PR0402MB2760.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.
