From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Wang Subject: Re: linux-next Problems with VPN tunnel - no packets sent Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 03:20:19 +0008 Message-ID: <1417576339.19959.0@smtp.corp.redhat.com> References: <17929.1417552899@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Cc: Herbert Xu , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Valdis Kletnieks Return-path: In-Reply-To: <17929.1417552899@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: > Recent linux-next has broken my Juniper VPN client. The tunnel gets > created, > routes get added, but trying to actually send packets across results > in packets > just disappearing. 'ifconfig' consistently reports exactly 1 packet > sent (even > after a 'ping' command or similar should have sent multiple packets. > > tun0: flags=4305 mtu 1400 > inet 172.27.1.40 netmask 255.255.255.255 destination > 172.27.1.40 > unspec 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 > txqueuelen 500 (UNSPEC) > RX packets 1 bytes 355 (355.0 B) > RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 > TX packets 1 bytes 61 (61.0 B) > TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > > Still broken in next-20141201, and bisection fingers this commit: > > commit e0b46d0ee9c240c7430a47e9b0365674d4a04522 > Author: Herbert Xu > Date: Fri Nov 7 21:22:23 2014 +0800 > > tun: Use iovec iterators > > This patch removes the use of skb_copy_datagram_const_iovec in > favour of the iovec iterator-based skb_copy_datagram_iter. > > This commit is in the kernel, and does *not* fix the problem: > > commit 8c847d254146d32c86574a1b16923ff91bb784dd > Author: Jason Wang > Date: Thu Nov 13 16:54:14 2014 +0800 > > tun: fix issues of iovec iterators using in tun_put_user() > > So there's apparently additional issues that Jason didn't address. I > tried to > revert Herbert's patch for testing, but there's at least 5 or 6 > other patches > that need reverting first, so I abandoned that unless it becomes > necessary... > > What's the best way to proceed? See another fixes from Herbert, it probably fixes your issue: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=141734182302021&w=2