From: "Luís Silva" <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:47:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1275468451.2999.17.camel@luis-port> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C05B1D8.4000104@goop.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7177 bytes --]
Hello,
I'm using the latest stable-2.6.32.x. I already tried "ethtool -K
<bridge> tx off", but that didn't make any difference. Also, this only
happen with pv, in hvm mode all works ok and the domU sees the arp
messages...
Thanks,
Luís
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 18:20 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 05:38 PM, Luís Silva wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Finally I managed to get a xen 4.0 working on ubuntu 10.04 with pvops
> > kernel and libvirt. However I am having some problems with
> > networking... after initial installation with netinstall image in hvm
> > mode, when I transform the vm in xen pv (via pygrub with the current
> > ubuntu kernel), networking startEd to act weird...
> >
> > Basically I'm not using a network script from xen. I define a bridge
> > (manually or via libvirt, the result is the same) and I use vif-bridge
> > to connect the vif to it. But now the weird part comes: I can
> > communicate from domU to dom0, but not the other way around, unless I
> > keep a ping running from domU to dom0... That's right, weird... while
> > trying the ping from dom0 to domU, I used tcpdump both on the bridge,
> > on the vif and on the eth0 in the domU. The arp packets never get to
> > domU, but they appear both in the bridge and the vif sniff's...
>
> What version of kernel are you using in dom0 and domU? There was a
> netback bug which caused problems with dom0<->domU communication, but it
> has been fixed for a while in 2.6.32 (but only recently in .31). The
> workaround is to disable tx checksum offload on your bridge (ethtool -K
> <bridge> tx off).
>
> J
>
> >
> > Here is the bridge:
> > ifconfig virbr0
> > virbr0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> > inet addr:192.168.120.254 Bcast:192.168.120.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> > inet6 addr: fe80::7cee:4bff:fe82:e63f/64 Scope:Link
> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:16 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:226 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> > RX bytes:952 (952.0 B) TX bytes:13953 (13.9 KB)
> >
> >
> > brctl show
> > bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
> > virbr0 8000.feffffffffff no vif5.0
> >
> >
> > tcpdump -i virbr0 -vv -n
> > tcpdump: listening on virbr0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
> > 01:31:25.945151 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 1, length 64
> > 01:31:26.945361 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 2, length 64
> > 01:31:27.945420 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 3, length 64
> > 01:31:28.945362 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 4, length 64
> > 01:31:29.945364 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 5, length 64
> > 01:31:30.944300 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:30.945359 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 6, length 64
> > 01:31:31.944297 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:31.945444 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 7, length 64
> > 01:31:32.944294 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:32.945401 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> > 192.168.120.254 > 192.168.120.1: ICMP echo request, id 10317, seq 8, length 64
> > 01:31:33.947293 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:34.947373 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:35.947353 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:37.948352 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:38.948399 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:39.948376 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:31:40.949356 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> >
> >
> > tcpdump -i vif5.0 -vv -n
> > tcpdump: WARNING: vif5.0: no IPv4 address assigned
> > tcpdump: listening on vif5.0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
> > 01:32:19.956358 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:20.956358 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:21.956359 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:23.957311 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:24.957312 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:25.957359 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:27.958360 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:28.958310 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> > 01:32:29.958362 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
> >
> >
> >
> > Forwarding and iptables don't seem to be the problem, because if I
> > initiate a ping from domU (at the same time as the failing one from
> > dom0), the ping in dom0 starts to work. As soon as I stop the ping in
> > domU, the one in dom0 starts failing again...
> >
> > Is anyone having the same problem? Is this a bug in the kernel? In
> > dom0 or domU?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Luís
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7824 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-02 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-02 0:38 ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel Luís Silva
2010-06-02 1:20 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-02 8:47 ` Luís Silva [this message]
2010-06-02 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-02 18:53 ` Luís Silva
2010-06-02 19:26 ` Re: [Xen-devel] " Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-03 10:20 ` [Xen-users] " Luís Silva
2010-06-03 10:59 ` Re: [Xen-devel] " Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-03 23:18 ` [Xen-users] " Luís Silva
2010-06-06 10:19 ` Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel 2.6.32.15 Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-06 16:43 ` [Xen-users] " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-02 7:09 ` ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-02 7:10 ` Sander Eikelenboom
2010-06-02 8:00 ` [Xen-users] " Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-03 9:35 ` Boris Derzhavets
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1275468451.2999.17.camel@luis-port \
--to=luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
--cc=xen-users@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).