From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Kirstein Subject: Re: networking checksum errors again Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:46:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20060331074641.E26981@web.ray.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="DO5DiztRLs659m5i" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from xen@jasonandjessi.com on Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:30:09PM -0600 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Cc: Jason List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --DO5DiztRLs659m5i Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hallo, > Regardless of whether or not I use a dom0 kernel or a domU kernel I > get failed checksum packets whenever I try to route across a virtual > interface. I have a pure virtual setup Ah, I just dived into that recently... Is there a bugzilla id for that already? I had the same problem as you, Dom0 can't communicate with DomU due to the checksum errors in a routed setup, everything works when bridged. But I don't want to bridge :) > thing on all interfaces, tried changing the code in netback.c to > force a checksum and have had no luck. Any else having trouble? Which netback.c patch did you use? I currently have a working setup using the "interface.c" patch which removes the NETIF_F_NO_CSUM from the dev->features in Dom0 (attached). Using this "sum ok" packets go from Dom0 to DomU (also leaving Dom0 intact), DomU to Dom0 packets are broken leaving DomU but Dom0 ignores that. Using ethtool -K eth0 tx off in DomU I can bring DomU to generate valid sums also, but that's cosmetic and not needed for a working setup. I'd rather also patch this in the kernel instead of running ethtool in every DomU but I haven't searched for that yet. Should be easy, though :) As far as I understood the discussion, this is not an easy issue and possibly will be dealt with in in clean way after the 3.0.2 release? For now I have other problems, the above setup seems to work fine for me (also for DomU-DomU communication, which of course is routed over Dom0. Will have to test tunnels/vpn in DomU). (:ul8er, r@y --DO5DiztRLs659m5i Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="netback-interface.patch" diff -U 3 -r xen-unstable-orig/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/netback/interface.c xen-unstable/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/netback/interface.c --- xen-unstable-orig/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/netback/interface.c 2006-03-28 06:11:37.000000000 +0200 +++ xen-unstable/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/netback/interface.c 2006-03-30 08:17:01.000000000 +0200 @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ dev->get_stats = netif_be_get_stats; dev->open = net_open; dev->stop = net_close; - dev->features = NETIF_F_NO_CSUM; + dev->features = 0; /* replaced NETIF_F_NO_CSUM */ /* Disable queuing. */ dev->tx_queue_len = 0; --DO5DiztRLs659m5i Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --DO5DiztRLs659m5i--