From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek =?utf-8?Q?Marczykowski-G=C3=B3recki?= Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xen-netfront crash when detaching network while some network activity Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 19:13:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20150522171335.GG957@mail-itl> References: <20150522114932.GC8664@mail-itl> <555F5888.4020303@citrix.com> <20150522164246.GE957@mail-itl> <555F6041.7000203@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xSu31lw3TgkWXnjh" Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Boris Ostrovsky , netdev@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel To: David Vrabel Return-path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:35156 "EHLO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964813AbbEVRNm (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 13:13:42 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B7120833 for ; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:13:41 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <555F6041.7000203@citrix.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --xSu31lw3TgkWXnjh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:58:41PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > On 22/05/15 17:42, Marek Marczykowski-G=C3=B3recki wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:25:44PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > >> On 22/05/15 12:49, Marek Marczykowski-G=C3=B3recki wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I'm experiencing xen-netfront crash when doing xl network-detach while > >>> some network activity is going on at the same time. It happens only w= hen > >>> domU has more than one vcpu. Not sure if this matters, but the backend > >>> is in another domU (not dom0). I'm using Xen 4.2.2. It happens on ker= nel > >>> 3.9.4 and 4.1-rc1 as well. > >>> > >>> Steps to reproduce: > >>> 1. Start the domU with some network interface > >>> 2. Call there 'ping -f some-IP' > >>> 3. Call 'xl network-detach NAME 0' > >> > >> I tried this about 10 times without a crash. How reproducible is it? > >> > >> I used a 4.1-rc4 frontend and a 4.0 backend. > >=20 > > It happens every time for me... Do you have at least two vcpus in that > > domU? With one vcpu it doesn't crash. The IP for ping I've used one in > > backend domU, but it shouldn't matter. > >=20 > > Backend is 3.19.6 here. I don't see any changes there between rc1 and > > rc4, so stayed with rc1. With 4.1-rc1 backend it also crashes for me. >=20 > Doesn't repro for me with 4 VCPU PV or PVHVM guests. I've tried with exactly 2 vcpus in frontend domU (PV), but I guess it shouldn't matter. Backend is also PV. > Is your guest > kernel vanilla or does it have some qubes specific patches on top? This one was from vanilla - both frontend and backend (just qubes config). Maybe something about device configuration? Here is xenstore dump: frontend: 0 =3D "" backend =3D "/local/domain/66/backend/vif/69/0" backend-id =3D "66" state =3D "4" handle =3D "0" mac =3D "00:16:3e:5e:6c:07" multi-queue-num-queues =3D "2" queue-0 =3D "" tx-ring-ref =3D "1280" rx-ring-ref =3D "1281" event-channel-tx =3D "19" event-channel-rx =3D "20" queue-1 =3D "" tx-ring-ref =3D "1282" rx-ring-ref =3D "1283" event-channel-tx =3D "21" event-channel-rx =3D "22" request-rx-copy =3D "1" feature-rx-notify =3D "1" feature-sg =3D "1" feature-gso-tcpv4 =3D "1" feature-gso-tcpv6 =3D "1" feature-ipv6-csum-offload =3D "1" backend: 69 =3D "" 0 =3D "" frontend =3D "/local/domain/69/device/vif/0" frontend-id =3D "69" online =3D "1" state =3D "4" script =3D "/etc/xen/scripts/vif-route-qubes" mac =3D "00:16:3e:5e:6c:07" ip =3D "10.137.3.9" handle =3D "0" type =3D "vif" feature-sg =3D "1" feature-gso-tcpv4 =3D "1" feature-gso-tcpv6 =3D "1" feature-ipv6-csum-offload =3D "1" feature-rx-copy =3D "1" feature-rx-flip =3D "0" feature-split-event-channels =3D "1" multi-queue-max-queues =3D "2" hotplug-status =3D "connected" --=20 Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-G=C3=B3recki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? --xSu31lw3TgkWXnjh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVX2O/AAoJENuP0xzK19csMcsH/3QRDAZvxlRTysCLBADkIfNv iz+nk5Kj4IaNPd9aAT7DeLJrPiO3701NFae84wJ2fYpBwfCgwguca1zw0WT178ow LX/1474PyLMvoDbcx9vqqu0cWgz7/kvsdtQQDq747Bis0gmxg3/IRQ2zX12BkUZ6 tQ/M3jOzhNk4KRPfeR0InWSuV8Qtijmf9khBJY8bYNScsQJp3XvArYZtdeMFMfdg gRSxISQpY2gIzr5QYAylnea9Dw+GW6fRuih9fN/oJTEJ6RjB01JvqunT1gF8j0ro 4Fy0J9j4PcSccMZfkm4G9l6AHxOvw9XTrryU3Nml8HAC+sPm5U6R1pQtIOuRV0k= =3Y2e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xSu31lw3TgkWXnjh--