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
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:03:58 -0400
From:	Bill Fink <>
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <>
Cc:	"L F" <>,
	"Kok, Auke-jan H" <>,
	"James Chapman" <>, <>
Subject: Re: e1000 driver and samba

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:

> L F wrote:
> > On 9/17/07, Kok, Auke <> wrote:
> >> The statistic we were looking at _will_ increase when running in
> >> half duplex, but if it increases when running in full duplex might
> >> indicate a hardware failure. Probably you have fixed the issue with
> >> the CAT6 cable. 
> > Uhm, 'fixed' may be premature: I restarted the machine and with 22
> > hours uptime I am getting:
> > tx_deferred_ok: 36254
> > 
> >> Can you run this new configuration with the old cable? that would
> >> eliminate the cable (or not)
> > I most certainly can. This seems to have gotten worse by a factor or
> > 100 or more.. so am I to suspect the new cable?
> > 
> >> A single port failure on a switch can also happen, and samba is
> >> definately 
> >> a good test for defective hardware. I cannot rule out anything from
> >> the information we have gotten yet.
> > True, but I tried changing the switch ports with little change.
> > Putting a client on the same switch port yielded no errors on the
> > client, although unfortunately I don't have ethtool statistics on XP.
> > The switch, btw, is a fairly generic GS108 from Netgear (there
> > actually are two).
> it may be not well documented, but the hardware has several states that
> it can get into that can cause tx_deferred counter to increment.  None
> of them are fatal to traffic, it is mainly an informational statistic.
> in this case it is in the "due to receiving flow control; tx is paused"
> state...
> he has 488 rx flow control xoff/xon, which means the switch is being
> overloaded and sending flow control, or the switch is passing through
> flow control packets (which it should not since they are multicast) and
> (some) client is overloaded.
> can you turn off flow control at the server?  ethtool -A ethX rx off tx
> off or load the driver with parameter FlowControl=0  With the 7.6.5
> driver at least you'll get confirmation of the flow control change on
> the "Link Up:" line.

It may also be a useful test to disable hardware TSO support
via "ethtool -K ethX tso off".

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists