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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:16:06 +0100 From: Michael Leun <lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net> To: "Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com> Cc: "Jesse Gross" <jesse@...ira.com>, "Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>, "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Ben Greear" <greearb@...delatech.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.36] vlan: Avoid hwaccel vlan packets when vid not used On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:34:31 -0800 "Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:24:30PM -0800, Michael Leun wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:15:00 -0800 > > "Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com> wrote: > > > Michael, I'm wondering if the difference in behavior can be > > > explained by the presence or absence of management firmware. Can > > > you look at the driver sign-on messages in your syslogs for > > > ASF[]? I'm half expecting the 5752 to show "ASF[0]" and the 5714 > > > to show "ASF[1]". If you see this, and the below patch doesn't > > > fix the problem, let me know. I have another test I'd like you > > > to run. > > > > Do I understand this correct? "Management firmware" or ASF is some > > feature, vendor decides to built into network card (firmware) or > > not? > > Right. > > > If so, would'nt one expect two oneboard network cards in one server > > to look alike? > > Mostly, yes. Except for..... > > > HP Proliant DL320G5 > > > > <6>tg3.c:v3.113 (August 2, 2010) > > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 > > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(N/A) rev 9003] > > (PCIX:133MHz:64-bit) MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx <6>tg3 > > 0000:03:04.0: eth0: attached PHY is 5714 (10/100/1000Base-T > > Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1]) <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: eth0: RXcsums[1] > > LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[1] TSOcap[1] > This => ^^^^^^ > > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: eth0: dma_rwctrl[76148000] dma_mask[64-bit] > > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: PCI INT B -> GSI 17 (level, low) -> IRQ 17 > > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: eth1: Tigon3 [partno(N/A) rev 9003] > > (PCIX:133MHz:64-bit) MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx <6>tg3 > > 0000:03:04.1: eth1: attached PHY is 5714 (10/100/1000Base-T > > Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1]) <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: eth1: RXcsums[1] > > LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[0] TSOcap[1] > And this => ^^^^^^ > > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: eth1: dma_rwctrl[76148000] dma_mask[64-bit] > > So management firmware is turned off on the second port. > > > Lenovo ThinkPad z61m > > > > [ 2.679130] tg3.c:v3.113 (August 2, 2010) > > [ 2.679176] tg3 0000:02:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) > > -> IRQ 16 [ 2.679188] tg3 0000:02:00.0: setting latency timer to > > 64 [ 2.728572] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95752m) > > rev 6002] (PCI Express) MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx > > [ 2.728577] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: attached PHY is 5752 > > (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1]) [ 2.728581] tg3 > > 0000:02:00.0: eth0: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[0] > > TSOcap[1] > ^^^^^^ > And it isn't present on the 5752. > > > [ 2.728585] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: dma_rwctrl[76180000] > > dma_mask[64-bit] > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > [PATCH] tg3: Use new VLAN code > > > > Unfortunately had'nt time to try much now, but with 2.6.37-rc5 / > > your patch on the DL320, single user mode (nothing configured on > > eth) just after ifconfig eth0/eth1 up I see NO vlan tags on eth0 > > but I see vlan tags on eth1, so there clearly is a difference. > > > > I should have checked if I still see vlan tags on eth1 if I > > configure some vlan there - if helpful maybe I can do this (have to > > look, when I can effort another downtime). > > This would be helpful, just to solidify our findings. > > > I wonder, if the difference in that both onboard cards is really > > there or if there is some malfunction in detecion? > > Please run the above test first, but afterwards, can you apply the > below patch on top of your current sources. I suspect eth1 will > begin to act like eth0. > > This patch is just a test. > > [PATCH] tg3: Always strip VLAN tags > > This patch configures the hardware to always strip VLAN tags from > incoming packets. OK - all tests done on that DL320G5: For completeness, 2.6.37-rc5 unpatched: eth0, no vlan configured: totally broken - see double tagged vlans without tag, single or untagged packets missing at all eth0, vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged packets with one vlan tag) eth1 same as originally reported: without vlan configured see vlan tags (single and double tagged as expected) with vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged packets with one vlan tag) 2.6.37-rc5, your tg3 use new vlan-code patch: eth0, no vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged packets with one vlan tag) eth1, no vlan configured: see vlan tags (single and double tagged as expected) eth0, vlan configured: as without vlan eth1, vlan configured: as without vlan 2.6.37-rc5, your tg3 use new vlan-code patch with test patch ontop eth1 no vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged packets with one vlan tag) eth1 with vlan: the same Hope I did not miss a test I should have done - hope, I did not confuse anything. If something is not what you would expect you might ask, I've a script from that session and can look (but cannot post that, sorry). -- MfG, Michael Leun -- 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