[Bug 137089] [lagg] lagg falsely triggers IPv6 duplicate address detection

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=137089 --- Comment #3 from xelah-freebs...@xelah.com --- (In reply to Hiren Panchasara from comment #2) The servers involved have long since been retired, so I no longer have a way to test if it still happens. -- You are receiving this mail beca

Re: IPSEC MTU routing issue

On 01/23/15 15:13, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: Hi. On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:16:21PM +0100, Andrei Brezan wrote: Weird subject, maybe. I'm running FreeBSD-10.0-RELEASE with PF as firewall and racoon for IPSEC. The IPSEC tunnel is between the FreeBSD box and a Fortinet appliance. The IPSEC tunnel

[Differential] [Changed Subscribers] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other

kostikbel added a subscriber: kostikbel. kostikbel added a comment. Also would be nice to further split the patch into the mechanical change of the cc_exec/cc_migration macros, and the real fix(es). From what I read, the patch is correct, but it is currently noisy, which makes reading harder an

Zerocopy bpf

Hi! q1) I assume that libpcap has builtin support for checking if sysctl net.bpf.zerocopy_enable is set to 1, and if so uses zerocopy. Correct? q2) This should mean that all normal sniffing tools like tcpdump, tshark, ngrep, argus, etc do NOT need any specific options in order to use zerocopy

[Differential] [Changed Subscribers] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other

jhb added a subscriber: jhb. jhb added a comment. Hmm, I do think the idea of a kernel test framework should be discussed in its own right. I have implemented a much simpler one on my own for unit tests of locking primitives that you can see here. These worked by declaring tests in linker set

Re: Zerocopy bpf

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:25:25 +0100 (CET) el...@sentor.se wrote > Hi! > > q1) > I assume that libpcap has builtin support for checking if sysctl > net.bpf.zerocopy_enable is set to 1, and if so uses zerocopy. > Correct? > > q2) > This should mean that all normal sniffing tools like tcpdump, tshar

[Differential] [Commented On] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other tests)

rrs added a comment. To answer jhb and kostikbel 1) Yes this does address the two issues that Hans re-write of the callout system did without changing the KPI. There may be other bugs as well, but with the test framework and the old code I could reproduce both issues (spin lock held to

[Differential] [Accepted] D1705: sfxge: Use SFXGE_MODERATION to initialize event moderation

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn to your commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1705 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net ___

[Differential] [Accepted] D1704: sfxge: Pass correct address to free allocated memory in the case of load error

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn (mentor) to your commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1704 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net __

[Differential] [Accepted] D1703: sfxge: Remove unused esm_size member of the efsys_mem_t structure

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn (mentor) to your commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1703 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net __

[Differential] [Accepted] D1702: sfxge: Do not bzero() DMA allocated memory once again

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn (mentor) to your commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1702 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net __

[Differential] [Accepted] D1706: sfxge: implemented parameter to restrict RSS channels

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn (mentor) to your commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1706 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net __

[Differential] [Accepted] D1701: sfxge: Add evq argument to sfxge_tx_qcomplete()

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn (mentor) to your commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1701 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net __

[Differential] [Accepted] D1692: sfxge: Change sfxge_ev_qpoll() proto to avoid EVQ pointers array access

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn (mentor) to your commit message. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1692 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net __

[Differential] [Accepted] D1700: sfxge: fixed TSO code to cope with VLAN headers

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to add Approved by: gnn (mentor) to your commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1700 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net __

[Differential] [Requested Changes To] D1707: sfxge: access statistics buffers under port lock

gnn requested changes to this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. If you look at other drivers you'll see they have #define'd macros for the locks, rather than direct calls. This allows us to name the lock in the macro. See, for instance, this example

[Differential] [Accepted] D1699: sfxge: Remove extra cache-line alignment and reorder sfxge_evq_t

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to put Approved by: gnn (mentor) in the commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1699 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net ___

[Differential] [Accepted] D1698: sfxge: Make it possible to build without EVQ statistics

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to put Approved by: gnn (mentor) in the commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1698 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net ___

[Differential] [Accepted] D1708: sfxge: Separate software Tx queue limit for non-TCP traffic

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to put Approved by: gnn (mentor) in the commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1708 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net ___

[Differential] [Requested Changes To] D1697: sfxge: Expect required init_state on data path and in periodic calls

gnn requested changes to this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. __predict_false rarely, if ever, does the right thing. Have you run any benchmarks to show that this improves performance? REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1697 To: arybchi

[Differential] [Accepted] D1694: sfxge: Move txq->next pointer to part writable on completion path

gnn accepted this revision. gnn added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Remember to put Approved by: gnn (mentor) in the commit message. BRANCH /head REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1694 To: arybchik, gnn Cc: freebsd-net ___

[Differential] [Commented On] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other tests)

imp added a comment. I agree that the kernel test framework should be done differently as well. I didn't realize the number of mechanical changes my request to use the macros produced :( INLINE COMMENTS sys/sys/callout_test.h:1 I'm not sure that the callout_test.h belong in sys. Seems like n

[Differential] [Commented On] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other tests)

jhb added a comment. To be clear, I'm fine with updating my tests to a different framework, but I think it's worth discussing what that looked like. I also had to explicitly drop Giant in my test module handler. I do think it's probably better to explicitly ask tests to run instead of having k

[Differential] [Commented On] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other tests)

rrs added a comment. Imp: I can see how we can easily move callout_test.h out of sys. That really should be in the module/tests/callout_test/ dir. But where would you suggest the global framework file go if not sys? REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1711 To: rrs, gnn, rwatson, adr

[Differential] [Commented On] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other tests)

rrs added a comment. jhb The only reason I put the test stuff in this patch is its the only way to validate the patch, and that is something we really need in the callout system is a way to validate that its working correctly since this stuff tends to be very subtle and a bit of a head banger

[Bug 194314] [ixgbe] driver makes some dangerous assumptions with struct mbuf sizing with IXGBE_RX_COPY_LEN

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194314 Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r...@freebsd.org ---

ipfw, nat and stateful firewall: why "keep-state" on "skipto" works at all and how do this properly?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I have problems to understand how combination of nat and stateful ruleset for ipfw should work. There is no good guides, and most guides uses old "divert" which is different from in-kernel nat, as far as I understand. Problem is, if we want to al

Re: ipfw, nat and stateful firewall: why "keep-state" on "skipto" works at all and how do this properly?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 30.01.2015 03:37, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Is here better way to have nat and stateful ruleset? Actions like "create-dyn-allow" and "create-dyn-deny" will be very nice, BTW :) But looks like it is hard to add, as now dynamic rules are "replaced

Re: ipfw, nat and stateful firewall: why "keep-state" on "skipto" works at all and how do this properly?

On 1/30/15 8:37 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I have problems to understand how combination of nat and stateful ruleset for ipfw should work. There is no good guides, and most guides uses old "divert" which is different from in-kernel nat, as far a