On 06/06/2010 03:19 AM, Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> Network issues when working with DomUs in 2.6.32.14 and finally been
> fixed,
> seem to appear again in 2.6.32.15. Reverting to back to xen/stable -
> 2.6.32.10
> works as a fix again.
>
There are no substantial differences between 2.6.32.14 and .15. If
there are any differences in behaviour between them, then I'd suspect
some inconsistency from boot to boot, or in your kernel build process.
J
>
> Boris
>
> --- On *Thu, 6/3/10, Luís Silva /<
luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
>
>
>
From: Luís Silva <
luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0
> with pvops kernel
> To: "Boris Derzhavets" <
bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <
jeremy@xxxxxxxx>,
>
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 6:20 AM
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, xen/stable works ok for me. Only
> problem is that I have to disable offload do get dhcp to work on
> domU, but the problem I described before doesn't exist in this
> kernel. Later today I'm going to try a previous build I have based
> on stable-2.6.32.x (2.6.32.13) to check if it already had this
> problem or not and I'll post the results.
>
> Luís
>
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:26 -0700, Boris Derzhavets wrote:
>> Could you,please, build
and try 2.6.32.10 ( xen/stable) ?
>>
>> Boris.
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 6/2/10, Luís Silva **/<
luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>/*
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Luís Silva <
luis.silva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen
>> 4.0 with pvops kernel
>> To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <
jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
>>
Cc:
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 2:53 PM
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 09:06 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2010 01:47 AM, Luís Silva wrote:
>>> > 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...
>>>
>>> Yes, ARP is a new twist on network problems. I'm guessing you're using
>>> hvm without stubdoms, which means that its networking originates from
>>> qemu within dom0, whereas PV and HVM+stubdom comes via netback.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, when I mentioned hvm I was talking about hvm without
>>
stubdoms. I haven't tried those yet.
>>> But aside from that, I'm stumped. Are you running any firewalls on
>>> either side? Can you try disabling all the offloads (tx, rx, gso, tso)
>>> on all the relevent interfaces (bridge, netback, within the guest) and
>>> see if that changes anything?
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok, this is the bridge interface:
>>
>> brctl show
>>
bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
>> virbr0 8000.feffffffffff no vif1.0
>>
>> ifconfig virbr0
>> virbr0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr c2:ef:67:2b:a4:23
>> inet addr:192.168.120.254 Bcast:192.168.120.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
>> inet6 addr: fe80::c0ef:67ff:fe2b:a423/64 Scope:Link
>> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500
Metric:1
>> RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> TX packets:25 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>> RX bytes:0 (0.0
>> B)
>> TX bytes:4662 (4.6 KB)
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not using firewall other than the rules defined by
>> libvirt. DomU has no firewall and the rules in dom0
are only
>> these (virbr0 is natted to the outside, virbr1 is routed. The
>> result is the same in either one of them):
>>
>> sudo iptables -L -n -v
>> Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 241K packets, 53M bytes)
>> pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
>> 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- virbr1 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp
dpt:53
>> 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- virbr1 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:53
>>
>>
>> 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- virbr1 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:67
>> 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- virbr1 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:67
>> 8 515 ACCEPT udp -- virbr0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:53
>> 0 0
>>
>> ACCEPT tcp -- virbr0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:53
>> 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- virbr0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:67
>> 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- virbr0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:67
>>
>> Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
>> pkts bytes target
>> prot
>> opt in out source destination
>> 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * virbr1 0.0.0.0/0
192.168.121.0/24
>> 0 0 ACCEPT all -- virbr1 * 192.168.121.0/24 0.0.0.0/0
>> 0 0 ACCEPT all -- virbr1 virbr1 0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> 0.0.0.0/0
>> 0 0 REJECT all -- * virbr1 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with
icmp-port-unreachable
>> 0 0 REJECT all -- virbr1 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
>> 13 3448 ACCEPT all -- * virbr0 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.120.0/24
>> state
>> RELATED,ESTABLISHED
>> 16 1374 ACCEPT all -- virbr0 * 192.168.120.0/24 0.0.0.0/0
>> 0 0 ACCEPT all -- virbr0 virbr0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
>> 0 0 REJECT all -- * virbr0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
>> 0 0 REJECT all --
>> virbr0
>> * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
>>
>> Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 233K packets, 27M bytes)
>> pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And these are the various offload parameters as set at boot:
>>
>> Offload parameters for virbr0:
>> rx-checksumming: on
>> tx-checksumming: on
>> scatter-gather:
on
>> tcp-segmentation-offload: on
>> udp-fragmentation-offload: on
>> generic-segmentation-offload: on
>> generic-receive-offload: off
>> large-receive-offload: off
>>
>> Offload parameters for vif1.0:
>> rx-checksumming: on
>> tx-checksumming: on
>> scatter-gather: on
>> tcp-segmentation-offload: on
>> udp-fragmentation-offload: off
>> generic-segmentation-offload: on
>>
generic-receive-offload: off
>> large-receive-offload: off
>>
>> Offload parameters for eth0:
>> rx-checksumming: on
>> tx-checksumming: on
>> scatter-gather: on
>> tcp-segmentation-offload: on
>> udp-fragmentation-offload: off
>> generic-segmentation-offload: off
>> generic-receive-offload: off
>> large-receive-offload: off
>>
>>
>>
>> To disable all checksuming I run the following commands:
>> dom0:
>>
>> sudo ethtool -K virbr0 tx off sg off tso off gso off gro off
>> sudo ethtool -K vif1.0 tx off sg off tso off gso off gro off
>>
>>
>> domU
>>
>> sudo ethtool -K eth0 tx off sg off tso off gso off gro off
>>
>>
>>
>> This managed to get all
parameter to off in the mentioned
>> interfaces, but unfortunately the result is the same. The arp
>> requests get to vif1.0, but not to eth0 on the domU.
>>
>> sudo tcpdump -i vif1.0 -n -vv arp
>> tcpdump: WARNING: vif1.0: no IPv4 address assigned
>> tcpdump: listening on vif1.0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
>> 19:43:51.233378 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>> 19:43:52.233164 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>>
19:43:53.233166 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>> 19:43:54.684214 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>> 19:43:55.684218 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>> 19:43:56.684232 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.1 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this information is enough. If I can provide anything
>> else to help debug or test,
please just ask! ;)
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Luís
>>
>>> >
>>> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> >
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> >>
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>>
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >>
>>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
>
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> </mc/compose?to=
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users>
>
Home
