From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?=" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 12327] New: Intermittent TCP issues with =>
 2.6.27
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:39:30 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901082138060.31441@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
References: <bug-12327-10286@http.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
 <20081229214101.4c4f5ac1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0812311241490.3120@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi> <495BFEAF.6000006@haveacry.com>
 <20090102083402.GA24383@gondor.apana.org.au> <4961ECD2.1000502@haveacry.com>
 <20090107041732.GA22041@gondor.apana.org.au> <4964B303.4020708@haveacry.com>
 <20090108030745.GA1204@gondor.apana.org.au> <4966160A.20001@haveacry.com>
 <20090108083753.14670943@extreme>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Speedster <speedster@haveacry.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:43200 "EHLO
	mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753908AbZAHTjd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:39:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20090108083753.14670943@extreme>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:04:42 +0900
> Speedster <speedster@haveacry.com> wrote:
> 
> > Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > 
> > > Can you please take a look at /proc/net/snmp on the host and the
> > > guest to see if IP InDiscards is non-zero?
> > 
> > Both are 0
> > 
> > > Also now that we know the problem is definitely in the host/guest
> > > please take another set of dumps on the interfaces leading to and
> > > within the guest to see exactly which path of the system is dropping
> > > the reply.
> > 
> > Attached (all are the exact same attempted connection), and reveal some 
> > interesting information.
> > 
> > The path the inbound traffic should take is
> > 1. vlan50 (host)
> > 2. tap interface vnet3 (host) / eth0 (guest)
> > 3. ppp0 (guest)
> > 
> > It looks as though when it is sent out the tap interface the payload 
> > length is incorrect in the PPPoE section of the frame. When it arrives 
> > via vlan50 it appears fine. Or at least that's what wireshark highlights 
> > for me :)
> 
> Maybe there is an issue that GRO receive isn't handling padding
> properly?

Hmm, is gro supposed to have something to do with 2.6.27??? Or are you 
talking something else than Herbert's recent GRO stuff?


-- 
 i.