| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <46EC1A00.2000304@katalix.com> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:44:32 +0100 From: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com> To: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, L F <lfabio.linux@...il.com> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: e1000 driver and samba Kok, Auke wrote: > L F wrote: >> On 9/14/07, Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> wrote: >>> this slowness might have been masking the issue >> That is possible. However, it worked for upwards of twelve months >> without an error. >> >>> I have not yet seen other reports of this issue, and it would be >>> interesting to >>> see if the stack or driver is seeing errors. Please post `ethtool -S >>> eth0` after >>> the samba connection resets or fails. >> If you look for it on the Realtek cards, there had been sporadic >> issues up to late 2005. The solution posted universally was 'change >> card'. >> >> I include the content of ethtool -S as requested: >> beehive:~# ethtool -S eth4 >> NIC statistics: >> rx_packets: 43538709 >> tx_packets: 68726231 >> rx_bytes: 34124849453 >> tx_bytes: 74817483835 >> rx_broadcast: 20891 >> tx_broadcast: 8941 >> rx_multicast: 459 >> tx_multicast: 0 >> rx_errors: 0 >> tx_errors: 0 >> tx_dropped: 0 >> multicast: 459 >> collisions: 0 >> rx_length_errors: 0 >> rx_over_errors: 0 >> rx_crc_errors: 0 >> rx_frame_errors: 0 >> rx_no_buffer_count: 0 >> rx_missed_errors: 0 >> tx_aborted_errors: 0 >> tx_carrier_errors: 0 >> tx_fifo_errors: 0 >> tx_heartbeat_errors: 0 >> tx_window_errors: 0 >> tx_abort_late_coll: 0 >> tx_deferred_ok: 486 >> tx_single_coll_ok: 0 >> tx_multi_coll_ok: 0 >> tx_timeout_count: 0 >> tx_restart_queue: 0 >> rx_long_length_errors: 0 >> rx_short_length_errors: 0 >> rx_align_errors: 0 >> tx_tcp_seg_good: 0 >> tx_tcp_seg_failed: 0 >> rx_flow_control_xon: 488 >> rx_flow_control_xoff: 488 >> tx_flow_control_xon: 0 >> tx_flow_control_xoff: 0 >> rx_long_byte_count: 34124849453 Are these long frames expected in your network? What is the MTU of the transmitting clients? Perhaps this might explain why reads work (because data is coming from the Linux box so the packets have smaller MTU) while writes cause delays or packet loss because the clients are sending long frames which are getting fragmented? >> rx_csum_offload_good: 43449333 >> rx_csum_offload_errors: 0 >> rx_header_split: 0 >> alloc_rx_buff_failed: 0 >> tx_smbus: 0 >> rx_smbus: 0 >> dropped_smbus: 0 >> >> I am no expert, but I do not see anything that obviously points to an >> issue there. >> Now, something I did not mention before, though it was clearly evident >> from context, is that the errors ONLY occur on samba WRITE. I can read >> hundreds of GBs of data without error. > > can you describe your setup a bit more in detail? you're writing from a > linux client to a windows smb server? or even to a linux server? which > end sees the connection drop? the samba server? the samba linux client? > > Auke > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- James Chapman Katalix Systems Ltd http://www.katalix.com Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists