[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200831103512.00001fab@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:35:12 -0700
From: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] VRRP not working on i40e X722 S2600WFT
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:30:39PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > I have hit a new problem with the X722 chipset (Intel R1304WFT server).
> > VRRP simply does not work.
> >
> > When keepalived registers a vmac interface, and starts transmitting
> > multicast packets with the vrp message, it never receives those packets
> > from the peers, so all nodes think they are the master. tcpdump shows
> > transmits, but no receives. If I stop keepalived, which deletes the
> > vmac interface, then I start to receive the multicast packets from the
> > other nodes. Even in promisc mode, tcpdump can't see those packets.
> >
> > So it seems the hardware is dropping all packets with a source mac that
> > matches the source mac of the vmac interface, even when the destination
> > is a multicast address that was subcribed to. This is clearly not
> > proper behaviour.
Thanks for the report Lennart, I understand your frustration, as this
should probably work without user configuration.
However, please give this command a try:
ethtool --set-priv-flags ethX disable-source-pruning on
> > I tried a stock 5.8 kernel to check if a driver update helped, and updated
> > the nvm firware to the latest 4.10 (which appears to be over a year old),
> > and nothing changes the behaviour at all.
> >
> > Seems other people have hit this problem too:
> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/2018-May/003128.html
> >
> > Unless someone has a way to fix this, we will have to change away from
> > this hardware very quickly. The IPsec NAT RSS defect we could tolerate
> > although didn't like, while this is just unworkable.
> >
> > Quite frustrated by this. Intel network hardware was always great,
> > how did the X722 make it out in this state.
>
> Another case with the same problem on an X710:
>
> https://www.talkend.net/post/13256.html
I don't know how to reply to this other thread, but it is about DPDK,
which would require a code change or further investigation to issue the
right command to the hardware to disable source pruning.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists