[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901082138060.31441@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:39:30 +0200 (EET)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
cc: Speedster <speedster@...eacry.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 12327] New: Intermittent TCP issues with =>
2.6.27
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:04:42 +0900
> Speedster <speedster@...eacry.com> wrote:
>
> > Herbert Xu wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you please take a look at /proc/net/snmp on the host and the
> > > guest to see if IP InDiscards is non-zero?
> >
> > Both are 0
> >
> > > Also now that we know the problem is definitely in the host/guest
> > > please take another set of dumps on the interfaces leading to and
> > > within the guest to see exactly which path of the system is dropping
> > > the reply.
> >
> > Attached (all are the exact same attempted connection), and reveal some
> > interesting information.
> >
> > The path the inbound traffic should take is
> > 1. vlan50 (host)
> > 2. tap interface vnet3 (host) / eth0 (guest)
> > 3. ppp0 (guest)
> >
> > It looks as though when it is sent out the tap interface the payload
> > length is incorrect in the PPPoE section of the frame. When it arrives
> > via vlan50 it appears fine. Or at least that's what wireshark highlights
> > for me :)
>
> Maybe there is an issue that GRO receive isn't handling padding
> properly?
Hmm, is gro supposed to have something to do with 2.6.27??? Or are you
talking something else than Herbert's recent GRO stuff?
--
i.
--
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