From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1O1lYY-0005io-LE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:13:54 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53069 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1lYX-0005iJ-72
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:13:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1O1lYV-0005LQ-Ow
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:13:53 -0400
Received: from mail-pz0-f204.google.com ([209.85.222.204]:42239)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1O1lYV-0005LH-J8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:13:51 -0400
Received: by pzk42 with SMTP id 42so5019035pzk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <x2of43fc5581004131148p9f1c3c3dm7d50231b50f374f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BC34D95.7050804@siemens.com>
	<201004122107.19425.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<x2of43fc5581004131148p9f1c3c3dm7d50231b50f374f0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:13:50 +0300
Message-ID: <k2zf43fc5581004131213q575798cq69d0dde8b4050d7@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] How to lock-up your tap-based VM network
From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 4/13/10, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/10, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>  > > A major reason for this deadlock could likely be removed by shutting
>  >  > down the tap (if peered) or dropping packets in user space (in case of
>  >  > vlan) when a NIC is stopped or otherwise shut down. Currently most (if
>  >  > not all) NIC models seem to signal both "queue full" and "RX disabled"
>  >  > via !can_receive().
>  >
>  >
>  > No. A disabled device should return true from can_recieve, then discard the
>  >  packets in its receive callback. Failure to do so is a bug in the device. It
>  >  looks like the virtio-net device may be buggy.
>
>
> Awesome, it looks like a longstanding bug with pcnet/lance has is
>  fixed by this change! OpenBSD installer would hang when receiving
>  packages, now it works!

I spoke too soon, networking works also without the patch now.