Hi, Here's the summary of the IRC meeting.
--- COMMUNITY MEETING Place: #openvpn-meeting on irc.freenode.net Date: Wednesday 4th September 2019 Time: 11:30 CEST (9:30 UTC) Planned meeting topics for this meeting were here: <https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/Topics-2019-09-04> Your local meeting time is easy to check from services such as <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock> SUMMARY dazo, lev, mattock, ordex, plaisthos, rozmansi and syzzer participated in this meeting. --- Discussed HLK testing. As pointed out by rozmansi all of the tests don't have to pass on the same HLK clients, and not all of the tests require a physical HLK client. Therefore the following setup could possibly work around the odd issues in mattock's physical HLK environment (possibly related underlying network drivers): - Virtualized HLK controller (Server 2016, already present) - One physical HLK client (already present) - One physical HLK support machine (already present) - One virtual HLK client (for E2EPerf test, needs to be created) - One virtual HLK support machine (for E2EPerf test, needs to be created) This way E2EPerf traffic could run in fully virtualized environment and thus avoid physical network/network driver-related problems. Rozmansi also noted that Windows 10 1809 can be used for the majority of the tests. Windows Server 2019 and Server 2019 Core is needed to pass a couple of Server-specific tests only. Possibly those Server 2019 tests could be run on virtual machines: this would circumvent the "Windows Server 2019 driver support on real computers is poor" issue. Agreed that at some point, maybe OpenVPN 2.6, it could be possible to drop tap support altogether. Also agreed that the main goal for tap-windows6 now is to get rid of the unneeded HLK-testing complexity currently required for getting WHQL certification. --- Discussed the option of having tap emulation in OpenVPN. Basically it would just allow connecting a tun client to tap server. Obviously tap-specific features would not work, but basic connectivity would be there. -- Full chatlog attached.
(12:44:38) mattock: mkay back at my computer (12:45:23) mattock: seems like we don't have a topic list for today, probably I forgot to send the invitation (12:45:43) mattock: in any case, I can give a brief update of everyone's favorite topic (12:46:43) ordex: hi (12:46:48) ordex: yeah (12:46:49) ordex: :D (12:47:06) mattock: to rule out the possibility of local issues in my physical HLK test environment (E2EPerf test) I've repeatedly tried to download the Virtual HLK but even getting it downloaded is a challenge (12:47:30) mattock: the download seems to stop at 20GB even though the file size is claimed to be 31.5GB (12:48:20) mattock: I also started fixing the EC2 HLK environment just so that I could test E2EPerf (12:48:25) mattock: that is in progress (12:48:40) ordex: is e2etest a required step for the certification ? (12:48:43) mattock: yes (12:48:55) ordex: and we haven't passed that in the physical env ? (12:49:01) mattock: and it is known to pass - several people have made it pass in the past without any special trickery (12:49:01) ordex: so you're trying to use the virtua env ? (12:49:19) mattock: yes, to verify that the environment is to blame (12:49:36) mattock: and then figure out what is the difference between working virtual environment and non-working physical environment (12:49:44) ordex: oh ok (12:49:51) ordex: because we don't really know why it fails, right ? (12:50:01) mattock: at this point I'm blaming the underlying network drivers in Windows Server 2019 (they're the stock drivers), but I could be wrong (12:50:02) ordex: don't we get any feedback about the failure ? (12:50:15) mattock: exactly, there is thousands of lines of debug logs but nothing useful (12:50:36) lev__: are all those troubles because of tap? (12:50:40) mattock: packet capture logs show lots of TCP-related errors (duplicate ACKs and such) (12:51:20) mattock: I'm not sure what the problem is, but the logs don't show anything useful (12:51:49) mattock: except that possibly the backchannel connection (=the one going to the "corporate network") stops working at some point for unknown reasons (12:52:08) mattock: anyways, I need to make the test pass in some environment so that I can compare (12:52:20) mattock: EC2 seems the path of least resistance, given the issues with VHLK (12:53:12) lev__: do you think we can speed up this process by dropping tap support? (12:53:12) mattock: also, as rozmansi kindly pointed out that ARM64 with secure boot requires WHQL/HLK-tested drivers (12:53:35) mattock: lev__: we had that discussions in the past and agree we really can't / should not at this point (12:54:42) mattock: anyways, the HLK testing environment will need to grow over time, and in my opinion we should do our best to outsource it once we get the first HLK-tested release out (12:54:54) mattock: otherwise my HLK workload will only increase over time (12:55:05) mattock: something I'm not really looking forward to (12:55:16) mattock: HLK is a huge timesink if/when something does not work as intended (12:55:24) rozmansi: mattock1: _any_ windows with secure boot require WHQL drivers. :( (12:55:29) mattock: ah hi (12:55:33) rozmansi: hi (12:55:34) mattock: that's even worse then (12:55:45) mattock: rozmansi: now that you're here (12:55:53) rozmansi: you mentioned my name an I got a notification - didn't know there's a meeting today :( (12:55:59) mattock: what is the correct file size for the VHLK 1809 vhdx file? (12:56:17) mattock: my downloads stop at 20GB and converting to vdi format fails at 30% (12:56:29) mattock: download is supposed to 31.5GB according to the browser (12:56:41) rozmansi: dunno, haven't saved it :) but I didn't have _any_ issues downloading it. More than once. (12:56:56) mattock: interesting (12:57:01) mattock: I'm using Linux though :) (12:57:20) rozmansi: Maybe microsoft.com is alergic to linux. :( (12:57:27) mattock: I would not be surprised (12:57:44) mattock: though the download seems also allergic to Microsoft Edge (or Microsoft Edge is allergic to large downloads) (12:57:45) rozmansi: i've used firefox on windows (12:57:58) mattock: I'm now downloading it on Chrome on Windows ARM64 (12:58:04) rozmansi: microsoft doesn't eat its own cooking (12:58:19) ordex: I can download it too and ship you a pendrive if you think it makes sense :D (12:58:25) rozmansi: for the most of the time MSDN worked worst with Internet Explorer (12:58:32) mattock: ordex: I hate to say but that might actually make sense lol :) (12:58:44) mattock: rozmansi: I was unable to start the download using IE (12:58:57) ordex: mattock1: have you tried from a different internet connection ? (12:59:00) ordex: i.e. home vs office ? (12:59:06) ordex: maybe it's some provider thing too (12:59:13) rozmansi: another thing: vhdx can be converted to .vdi and run by VirtualBox. (12:59:16) mattock: though it was on Server 2016 so all the security stuff got in the middle (12:59:17) ordex: that kills long lasting connections..because it must be wrong !! (12:59:23) syzzer: mattock1, rozmansi: I'm mostly clueless regarding the whole windows driver signing, but a colleague of mine told me yesterday that you can often avoid the difficult parts by marking the driver as "demand_start” instead of "boot_start" (12:59:33) syzzer: maybe this rings a bell for you guys? (12:59:53) mattock: rozmansi: yes, I tried that, but the file seemed incomplete and hence the conversion stopped at 30% (12:59:53) syzzer: (since you're talking about secure boot requirements) (12:59:57) mattock: at 20GB (13:00:43) mattock: ordex: I'm not 100% sure, but I can try a mobile connection (13:00:44) mattock: anyways (13:01:17) rozmansi: syzzer: nope, I don't think so... the tap-windows6 is not a PnP device that could trigger a demand_start driver. It's a virtual device that is not "plugged in". (13:01:46) syzzer: ah, okay. and chaging that is not easier than fighting the test setup? (13:01:51) mattock: one more question to our resident Windows expert (13:02:04) mattock: one of the problems with physical Windows Server 2019 instances is driver support (13:02:37) mattock: do you know if it is possible to completely disable the driver signing requirement on Server 2019 and if yes, would standard Windows 10 drivers work ok on it? (13:03:15) mattock: to rule out issues with the stock (network) drivers that Windows Server 2019 is using out of the box (13:03:26) rozmansi: mattock1: you already did `bcdedit /set testsigning on`, right? (13:03:54) mattock: yes, but I mean disabling the signing requirement altogether (13:04:18) mattock: so that I could install, say, Lenovo's Windows 10 ethernet card drivers for the HLK client computer (13:04:34) mattock: without importing Lenovo's driver signing cert into the certificate store (13:04:52) rozmansi: that should work (13:05:15) rozmansi: win10 1809 release and winsrv2019 are one and the same core (13:05:25) rozmansi: maybe your server has secure boot enabled? (13:05:46) mattock: the HLK client is a fairly recent (~1 year old) Lenovo Thinkcentre, and the support machine is pretty old Thinkpad L420, and most of the devices don't have driver support at all (13:05:57) mattock: I have to check those details (13:06:26) dazo: [thinking a bit forward] The more I see this tap-windows6 fighting ... I begin to wonder if we really need to replace it with a proper plain tun driver .... and for those needing to connect to a TAP based server, that we emulate TAP instead in OpenVPN ... we will loose those doing bridging or depending on OSI Layer 2/Ethernet frames on Windows - but how big is this user base? (13:07:17) ordex: you mean tap emulation won't work when using windows ? (13:08:23) dazo: ordex: that would mean the driver would need TAP mode. But if it is a plain TUN driver, OpenVPN can remove the Ethernet frame and pass the TCP/IP packet directly to the tun driver (13:08:35) ordex: ah ok (13:08:46) ordex: but wouldn't this probem also exist on linux then ? (13:09:03) dazo: it's the TAP mode in the driver making this certification explode in complexity on Windows (13:09:21) rozmansi: mattock1: you can use Windows 10 1809 to do majority of the tests. You need a Windows Server 2019 and Server 2019 Core to pass some Server-specific tests only. But those are like two or three test IIRC. And probably they'd run on a virtual Windows Server 2019 too. (13:09:24) ordex: or we keep the linux side as it is now without changing anything ? (13:09:40) dazo: ordex: well, the TAP emulation could work on all platforms .... Some Android/iOS users would probably like this feature too (13:09:59) ordex: dazo: what would tun+emulation be useful for actually? if you lose all the advantages of L2 ? (13:10:00) rozmansi: mattock1: you don't need to pass _all_ tests on the same test machines. (13:10:03) dazo: ordex: but the primary goal is to get rid of the TAP complexity in the tap-windows6 certification (13:10:17) ordex: yap yap, I agree with gettind rid of the complexity (13:10:25) dazo: ordex: to support those servers configured with TAP (13:10:39) ordex: ok, so just to allow the connection to a tap server (13:10:41) ordex: okok (13:10:52) dazo: yeah (13:11:22) dazo: it won't be feature complete compared to a full blown TAP setup ... but at least you can connect and pass traffic (13:11:49) mattock: rozmansi: yes, that is a thought that also came to mind - pass e2eperf virtualized, then merge the results with the physical HLK results (13:12:08) mattock: but I still need a HLK environment where e2eperf test passes (13:12:30) mattock: which is doable, but VHLK and EC2 are both fighting back, so I have to force them to comply (13:12:53) mattock: I have to say that HLK has proven a tough foe to beat lol :D (13:13:12) ordex: dazo: yap yap okok (13:13:24) rozmansi: mattock1: you don't even need to merge. Just put some physical Windows 10 1809 boxes and some virtual Server 2019 into the same network controlled by the same WHLK controller. And when you schedule tests, you can pick which computer to schedule which test. (13:13:46) rozmansi: VHLK == HLK where controller is virtual (13:15:28) mattock: rozmansi: hmm, that might work, especially if I had this setup: (13:15:28) mattock: - virtual controller (13:15:28) mattock: - virtual client + virtual support machine (13:15:28) mattock: - physical client (+ physical support machine) (13:16:22) mattock: that way e2eperf test would go through virtualized network (13:16:27) mattock: would/could (13:16:35) mattock: anyways, more things to try out (13:16:38) rozmansi: for HLK you need: (13:16:38) rozmansi: - one Windows Server !!!2016!!! - can be physical or virtual. If virtual, Microsoft has already prepared a box you can use. It's called VHLK. (13:16:38) rozmansi: - test computers that must all match 1809 - be physical or virtual. Some test require physical, most work on virtual just fine) (13:17:03) mattock: yes, my controller is already 2016 and it is virtualized (13:17:13) mattock: it has always been (13:17:24) rozmansi: then you _dont_ need VHLK download (13:17:44) rozmansi: you'll just get another server 2016 with HLK controller pre-installed. (13:18:09) mattock: yeah, it is probably redundant anyways, as installing HLK is not very difficult (13:18:13) mattock: the controller (13:18:32) mattock: anyways I think we can move on if there are other topics (13:20:21) rozmansi: dazo: is dropping support for tap-windows6 viable for 2.5 Windows release? (13:20:53) dazo: rozmansi: no, I think that's too early, unfortunately ... but for 2.6 we should definitely consider it (13:21:23) rozmansi: dazo: thanks. This means I need to make a proper driver installer for MSI packages for 2.5 then. (13:21:49) dazo: We can discuss this on the Hackathon ... might be I'm just too pessimistic in regards to 2.5 :) (13:25:38) mattock: meeting concluded or something else to discuss? (13:26:28) mattock2 ha abbandonato la stanza (quit: Quit: IRC for Sailfish 0.9). (13:31:05) mattock: writing the summary (13:31:09) ***syzzer is off for lunch :) (13:31:20) mattock: have a good one!
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpnemail@example.com https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel