From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 37172] New: Enabling 802.1q vlan causes some packets to be received with a vlan id of 64 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:43:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20110613164355.c4f7b7b2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Patrick McHardy To: a.reversat@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37374 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753625Ab1FMXoG (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:44:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:20:58 GMT bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37172 > > Summary: Enabling 802.1q vlan causes some packets to be > received with a vlan id of 64 > Product: Networking > Version: 2.5 > Kernel Version: 2.6.39 > Platform: All > OS/Version: Linux > Tree: Mainline > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P1 > Component: Other > AssignedTo: acme@ghostprotocols.net > ReportedBy: a.reversat@gmail.com > Regression: Yes >>From which kernel version did we regress? Was 2.6.38 OK? Thanks. > > Created an attachment (id=61502) > --> (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=61502) > Packet capture of problem > > I added a vlan to my main network card by doing : > > vconfig add eth0 6 > > Then I got huge packet loss when pinging e.g google (around 70% packet loss). > > After checking a packet capture it seems that some packets come in with a vlan > tag even though they shouldn't. In my capture I see them with a vlan id of 64 > where they shouldn't even be 802.1q tagged. > > Kernel version is 2.6.39 and I am using the forcedeth driver so I don't know if > it is related to the network stack or the forcedeth driver. > > Attached is the relevant capture. Note how packet with seq 2 for instance is > tagged and packet with seq 5 isn't. > > I'll test this with the latest 3.0 rc and update the bug report if the problem > is fixed in there. >