[Bug 200379] SCTP stack is not FIB aware

2015-06-17 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379 --- Comment #18 from Michael Tuexen tue...@freebsd.org --- (In reply to Craig Rodrigues from comment #17) Ahh. Thanks for the hint. Will do. Best regards Michael -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Re: Sequence number handling issue with TCP data and FIN flag with a transient error

2015-06-17 Thread hiren panchasara
On 06/17/15 at 03:10P, Jean-Francois HREN wrote: Hello, while investigating a freeze on a modified FreeBSD 9.3 I stumbled upon a potential bug in netinet/tcp_output.c If an error occurs while processing a TCP segment with some data and the FIN flag, the back out of the sequence number

Re: Reg Intel Fortville IXL driver on 11-CURRENT

2015-06-17 Thread Ryan Stone
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Lakshmi Narasimhan Sundararajan lakshm...@msystechnologies.com wrote: [lakshmis@mau-bsd-10a ~/fortville/hol/sys/dev/ixl]$ diff -c5pt ixl_txrx.c ixl_txrx.c.mod *** ixl_txrx.c Fri Jun 12 06:56:51 2015 --- ixl_txrx.c.mod Fri Jun 12 06:56:33 2015 ***

Notice to Appear in Court

2015-06-17 Thread County Court
Notice to Appear, This is to inform you to appear in the Court on the June 22 for your case hearing. You are kindly asked to prepare and bring the documents relating to the case to Court on the specified date. Note: The case will be heard by the judge in your absence if you do not come. You

Re: Reg Intel Fortville IXL driver on 11-CURRENT

2015-06-17 Thread Jack Vogel
As Ryan said, its there to keep queues marked as hung from getting more work scheduled on them. I really don't know what to make of it if commenting it out is somehow improving things :) I would suggest more careful analysis of what is going wrong before committing anything like deleting this.

[Differential] [Commented On] D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes

2015-06-17 Thread hselasky (Hans Petter Selasky)
hselasky added a comment. lawrence: It is someone well known to be using FreeBSD. This patch makes such a big difference when applied to +10Gbit/s connections that we can run 2 TCP streams totalling 37.5 GBit/s on a single 2.x GHz CPU core instead of only one. REPOSITORY rS FreeBSD src

[Differential] [Commented On] D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes

2015-06-17 Thread lstewart (Lawrence Stewart)
lstewart added a comment. Ok, but that's anecdotal and gives us reviewers nothing to go on - without any methodology or raw data who knows whether the LRO change is solely responsible for the improvement and if it introduced any undesired side effects. It's also possible that with tuning, the

[Differential] [Commented On] D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes

2015-06-17 Thread lstewart (Lawrence Stewart)
lstewart added a comment. I hope I didn't delete it... from what I could see online, the Abandon Phabricator action is the means by which a reviewer indicates they have permanently rejected the patch (as opposed to suggesting changes). As to people using the patch, can you say who and why?

[Differential] [Commented On] D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes

2015-06-17 Thread hselasky (Hans Petter Selasky)
hselasky added a comment. lstewart: OK, just don't delete this patch, because some people are using it. REPOSITORY rS FreeBSD src repository REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1761 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: hselasky,

[Differential] [Abandoned] D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes

2015-06-17 Thread lstewart (Lawrence Stewart)
lstewart abandoned this revision. lstewart added a comment. Hans, Just because some hardware is capable of coalescing more than 64k of data doesn't mean we should feel obligated to support the functionality. I'd be curious to understand the anticipated use cases that led to hardware support

[Bug 200379] SCTP stack is not FIB aware

2015-06-17 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379 --- Comment #16 from Michael Tuexen tue...@freebsd.org --- (In reply to Alan Somers from comment #15) Yes, you can failover from one ISP to another. Currently this is done by having corresponding entries in a single routing table for the

oce(4) promiscous mode bug(?)

2015-06-17 Thread Sergey Akhmatov
Hi, I’ve got problems with HP NC550SFP NIC (http://www.emulex.com/products/ethernet-networking-storage-connectivity/ethernet-networking-adapters/hp-branded/nc550sfp/overview/ ) Setup information: I’m intended to use this system for traffic monitoring: switchport configured for traffic

[Bug 200323] BPF userland misuse can crash the system

2015-06-17 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323 --- Comment #14 from commit-h...@freebsd.org --- A commit references this bug: Author: eri Date: Wed Jun 17 12:23:05 UTC 2015 New revision: 284512 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/284512 Log: If there is a system with a

Reg Intel Fortville IXL driver on 11-CURRENT

2015-06-17 Thread Lakshmi Narasimhan Sundararajan
Hi FreeBSD folks, I am part of Panasas and working on evaluating IXL over FreeBSD [11-CURRENT] on Intel Taylor Pass platform for our next product. In that regard, while evaluating performance, we found the Tx performance to be very poor. We found it to be so because the tx interrupts are spread

Re: oce(4) promiscous mode bug(?)

2015-06-17 Thread Borja Marcos
On Jun 17, 2015, at 11:48 AM, Sergey Akhmatov wrote: Hi, I’ve got problems with HP NC550SFP NIC (http://www.emulex.com/products/ethernet-networking-storage-connectivity/ethernet-networking-adapters/hp-branded/nc550sfp/overview/ ) Beware The driver was unusable until fixes were applied

Re: oce(4) promiscous mode bug(?)

2015-06-17 Thread Sergey Akhmatov
I've tried 10.1-RELEASE, then 10-STABLE and finaly 11-CURRENT with the same result. Beware The driver was unusable until fixes were applied on 21st December. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/10/sys/dev/oce/?view=log Better use a recent 10-STABLE if possible.

Sequence number handling issue with TCP data and FIN flag with a transient error

2015-06-17 Thread Jean-Francois HREN
Hello, while investigating a freeze on a modified FreeBSD 9.3 I stumbled upon a potential bug in netinet/tcp_output.c If an error occurs while processing a TCP segment with some data and the FIN flag, the back out of the sequence number advance does not take into account the increase by 1 due to

[Bug 200379] SCTP stack is not FIB aware

2015-06-17 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379 --- Comment #14 from Michael Tuexen tue...@freebsd.org --- (In reply to Alan Somers from comment #13) I think interfaces can assign fibs to packets, it is a field in the mbuf packet header. It makes sense to use this information in case you

Re: oce(4) promiscous mode bug(?)

2015-06-17 Thread Borja Marcos
On Jun 17, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Sergey Akhmatov wrote: I've tried 10.1-RELEASE, then 10-STABLE and finaly 11-CURRENT with the same result. Sorry, in that case I don't know what it might be. Have you tried disabling adapter intelligence? rxcsum, txcsum, lro, etc? Borja.

Re: oce(4) promiscous mode bug(?)

2015-06-17 Thread Sergey Akhmatov
Tried disabling all offloadings available, doesn't help. Sorry, in that case I don't know what it might be. Have you tried disabling adapter intelligence? rxcsum, txcsum, lro, etc? ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list

[Bug 200379] SCTP stack is not FIB aware

2015-06-17 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379 --- Comment #15 from Alan Somers asom...@freebsd.org --- (In reply to Michael Tuexen from comment #14) You're right about the interface FIB. It will take incoming packets with a certain FIB. But it's not completely general; it's possible

Re: oce(4) promiscous mode bug(?)

2015-06-17 Thread elof2
It sounds like a promisc bug in the driver, just as you say, but just to test it some more: I see that you are running both in PPROMISC and PROMISC. What happen if you remove the PPROMISC and only let tcpdump set it's own PROMISC? Running in monitor mode is the correct way to sniff