From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex A Subject: Re: Frag is bigger than frame. Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:15:54 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20130604084458.GB15897@zion.uk.xensource.com> <20130604200807.GA7688@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5122013967965919464==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130604200807.GA7688@zion.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Wei Liu Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============5122013967965919464== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f642e16d8053704ded9fded --e89a8f642e16d8053704ded9fded Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Wei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:56:35PM -0700, Alex A wrote: > [...] > > > > > > > > we just hit this bug as well on CentOS 5.9 with kernels > > > > 2.6.18-348.4.1.el5 and 2.6.18-348.6.1.el5, however I checked it on > all > > > > domUs and dom0s GSO is off, only TSO is on. Would TSO still cause > this > > > > issue? > > > > > > > > > > I really think the proper thing to do is to fix your backend instead of > > > working around that problem -- the patch is available now and you're > > > running your customized kernel, right? > > > > > > > > > Wei. > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > I completely agree that fixing the backend is the proper thing to do. Do > > you mean these patches? > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=697089dc13c52d668322ac6cb8548520de27ed0e > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=9ecd1a75d977e2e8c48139c7d3efed183f898d94 > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=2810e5b9a7731ca5fce22bfbe12c96e16ac44b6f > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=03393fd5cc2b6cdeec32b704ecba64dbb0feae3c > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken aren't these patches against 2.6.3x kernel or 3.0.x? > > I'm running 2.6.18, so I would have to port those patches to 2.6.18 base, > > unless there exist same patches for 2.6.18? > > Also you are correct, we are running our custom compiled rhel kernels, > that > > are based on rhel source rpms. > > > > Sorry I don't understand. Do you mean your Dom0 is 2.6.18? My patches > are against 3.10, the backporting is undergoing, however I don't think > they will be backported to 2.6.18. If you're running 2.6.18 Dom0, > presumably who backported XSA-39 will also backport those patches? > > Jan maintains 2.6.18 tree with minimum required patches applied to fix > your problem (Frag bigger than frame), you might want to have a look at > the last two patches in tree. > http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg/ > > > Wei. > > > Alex > Yes, my Dom0 is 2.6.18, it's based on RHEL 5. They're the ones you backported XSA-39, but they're not indicating when they will backport your fix, they've made the bug private. I looked at Jan's tree and found those two patches you mentioned, I will create my own patch based on those two and rebuild the kernels. Thank you! Alex --e89a8f642e16d8053704ded9fded Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Wei Liu = <wei.liu2@citri= x.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:56:35PM -0700, Al= ex A wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > we just hit this bug as well on CentOS 5.9 with kernels
> > > 2.6.18-348.4.1.el5 and 2.6.18-348.6.1.el5, however I checked= it on all
> > > domUs and dom0s GSO is off, only TSO is on. Would TSO still = cause this
> > > issue?
> > >
> >
> > I really think the proper thing to do is to fix your backend inst= ead of
> > working around that problem -- the patch is available now and you= 're
> > running your customized kernel, right?
> >
> >
> > Wei.
> >
> > > Alex
> >
>
>
> I completely agree that fixing the backend is the proper thing to do. = Do
> you mean these patches?
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id= =3D697089dc13c52d668322ac6cb8548520de27ed0e
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id= =3D9ecd1a75d977e2e8c48139c7d3efed183f898d94
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id= =3D2810e5b9a7731ca5fce22bfbe12c96e16ac44b6f
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id= =3D03393fd5cc2b6cdeec32b704ecba64dbb0feae3c
>
>
> If I'm not mistaken aren't these patches against 2.6.3x kernel= or 3.0.x?
> I'm running 2.6.18, so I would have to port those patches to 2.6.1= 8 base,
> unless there exist same patches for 2.6.18?
> Also you are correct, we are running our custom compiled rhel kernels,= that
> are based on rhel source rpms.
>

Sorry I don't understand. Do you mean your Dom0 is 2.6.18? My pat= ches
are against 3.10, the backporting is undergoing, however I don't think<= br> they will be backported to 2.6.18. If you're running 2.6.18 Dom0,
presumably who backported XSA-39 will also backport those patches?

Jan maintains 2.6.18 tree with minimum required patches applied to fix
your problem (Frag bigger than frame), you might want to have a look at
the last two patches in tree.
http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg/


Wei.

> Alex

Yes, my Dom0 = is 2.6.18, it's based on RHEL 5. They're the ones you backported XS= A-39, but they're not indicating when they will backport your fix, they= 've made the bug private.

I looked at Jan's tree and found those two patches you mentioned, I wi= ll create my own patch based on those two and rebuild the kernels.

Thank you!

Alex
--e89a8f642e16d8053704ded9fded-- --===============5122013967965919464== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============5122013967965919464==--