* ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
@ 2010-06-02 0:38 Luís Silva
2010-06-02 1:20 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luís Silva @ 2010-06-02 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel, xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5797 bytes --]
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...
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
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6596 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
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 ` [Xen-devel] " Luís Silva
2010-06-02 7:09 ` ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel Boris Derzhavets
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2010-06-02 1:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: luis.silva; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users
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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
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 7:09 ` Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-02 7:10 ` Sander Eikelenboom
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Boris Derzhavets @ 2010-06-02 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel, xen-users, luis.silva
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6383 bytes --]
Could you provide an exact version of pvops kernel you have built up.
Boris.
--- On Tue, 6/1/10, Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: [Xen-users] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 8:38 PM
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...
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7587 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
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 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
4 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Sander Eikelenboom @ 2010-06-02 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luís Silva; +Cc: xen-devel
Hi Luis,
I think i'm using a setup similar to yours:
I'm using debian on my dom0 and domU's, xen4, pvops xen-next kernel for domU.
in /etc/network/interfaces I create a xen_bridge on boot
# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth1
iface eth1 inet static
address 172.16.1.1
netmask 255.255.0.0
auto xen_bridge
iface xen_bridge inet static
address 192.168.1.1
netmask 255.255.255.0
network 192.168.1.0
broadcast 192.168.1.255
# #gateway <your_default_gateway>
# #pre-up ifconfig eth0 down
pre-up brctl addbr xen_bridge
# #pre-up brctl addif xen-bridge eth0
# #pre-up ifconfig eth0 up
# #post-down ifconfig eth0 down
# #post-down brctl delif xen-bridge eth0
On which all the domU's will connect.
in xend-config.sxp, I use:
(network-script network-dummy)
(vif-script vif-bridge)
In domU config files I specify IP, MAC and the bridge to connect to:
vif = [ 'bridge=xen_bridge,ip=192.168.1.6,mac=00:16:3E:49:0E:FA' ]
Traffic between bridge and eth0 and eth1 is routed with iptables/ipmasq.
This works fine for me.
--
Sander
> 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...
> 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
--
Best regards,
Sander mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-users] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-02 0:38 ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel Luís Silva
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-02 7:10 ` Sander Eikelenboom
@ 2010-06-02 8:00 ` Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-03 9:35 ` Boris Derzhavets
4 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Boris Derzhavets @ 2010-06-02 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel, xen-users, luis.silva
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6916 bytes --]
Via my experience under Xen 4.0 ( 2.6.32.14 pvops) on top of Ubuntu 10.04 Server
Command :-
# virt-install --connect xen:/// --name VF13P -p --ram 2048 -f /dev/sda8 \
--vnc --location http://192.168.1.33/f13 --debug
Causes installer to crash Dom0 ( box just get frozen ) at the point of requesting IP for F13 DomU via either eth0(xen bridge) or virbr0.
About month ago same install worked OK with 2.6.32.12 pvops kernel.
Boris.
P.S. Some new message came up at virt-install :
libvirt : Xen Inotify error - ......
libvirt : Xen Inotify error - ......
libvirt : Xen Inotify error - ......
--- On Tue, 6/1/10, Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: [Xen-users] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 8:38 PM
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...
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8164 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-02 1:20 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
@ 2010-06-02 8:47 ` Luís Silva
2010-06-02 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luís Silva @ 2010-06-02 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-02 8:47 ` [Xen-devel] " Luís Silva
@ 2010-06-02 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-02 18:53 ` Luís Silva
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2010-06-02 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: luis.silva; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users
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.
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
>
> 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 <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-02 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
@ 2010-06-02 18:53 ` Luís Silva
2010-06-02 19:26 ` Re: [Xen-devel] " Boris Derzhavets
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luís Silva @ 2010-06-02 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13836 bytes --]
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@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
> >> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Xen-devel mailing list
> >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 19682 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-02 18:53 ` Luís Silva
@ 2010-06-02 19:26 ` Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-03 10:20 ` [Xen-users] " Luís Silva
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Boris Derzhavets @ 2010-06-02 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, luis.silva; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14209 bytes --]
Could you,please, build and try 2.6.32.10 ( xen/stable) ?
Boris.
--- On Wed, 6/2/10, Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
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@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>
>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 21414 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-users] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-02 0:38 ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel Luís Silva
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-02 8:00 ` [Xen-users] " Boris Derzhavets
@ 2010-06-03 9:35 ` Boris Derzhavets
4 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Boris Derzhavets @ 2010-06-03 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel, xen-users, luis.silva
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7254 bytes --]
> 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 was unable to reproduce this issue. F13 PV DomU was created via virt-manager
( libvirt 0.8.0) at Xen 4.0 (2.6.32.14) Dom0 on top of Ubuntu 10.04 Server.
I am able open SSH connection from Dom0 to F13 DomU.
Boris.
--- On Tue, 6/1/10, Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: [Xen-users] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 8:38 PM
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...
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8467 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-users] Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-02 19:26 ` Re: [Xen-devel] " Boris Derzhavets
@ 2010-06-03 10:20 ` Luís Silva
2010-06-03 10:59 ` Re: [Xen-devel] " Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-06 10:19 ` Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel 2.6.32.15 Boris Derzhavets
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luís Silva @ 2010-06-03 10:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boris Derzhavets; +Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, xen-devel, xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 18062 bytes --]
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@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
>
>
> From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
> Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0
> with pvops kernel
> To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
> xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> 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@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
> > >> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Xen-devel mailing list
> > >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
> > >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 21497 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-03 10:20 ` [Xen-users] " Luís Silva
@ 2010-06-03 10:59 ` 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
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Boris Derzhavets @ 2010-06-03 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: luis.silva; +Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, xen-devel, xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16116 bytes --]
> stable-2.6.32.x (2.6.32.13) to check if it already had this problem.
I would guess it's OK now ;)
# git branch -D xen/stable-2.6.32.x
# git checkout -b xen/stable-2.6.32.x origin/xen/stable-2.6.32.x
# git pull
# make menuconfig ( will show 2.6.32.14 at the moment)
# make
>have to disable offload do get dhcp to work on domU
Run tcpdump on any other box on the LAN different from Dom0 hosting.
DHCPDISCOVER is a broadcast request, so you should be able to capture
wrong UDP checksums. Otherwise it's gonna be a miracle.
Boris.
--- On Thu, 6/3/10, Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
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@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
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@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>
>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 23832 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-users] Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
2010-06-03 10:59 ` Re: [Xen-devel] " Boris Derzhavets
@ 2010-06-03 23:18 ` Luís Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luís Silva @ 2010-06-03 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boris Derzhavets; +Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, xen-devel, xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 30865 bytes --]
Hello again,
So, As I said, I had a build of 2.6.32.13 built from xen/stable-2.6.32.x
hanging around (last commit in git log is
"4dd582f35f28707a039111be9fdb8101fecb07de") and I tested it for the
particular problem I reported. The tests didn't show the problem I had,
so it should have been introduced somewhere in between...
To sumarize my findings:
* xen/stable (2.6.32.10): OK: It still has the UDP checksum
problem, but other than that, networking seems to work ok.
* xen(stable-2.6.32.x (up to commit
"4dd582f35f28707a039111be9fdb8101fecb07de"): OK: I didn't test
the checksum problem, but it should have it also as the fix was
commited after this date. My problem also doesn't show up here.
* xen/stable-2.6.32.x (2.6.32.14): NOT OK: No communication from
dom0 to domU, unless domU is generating traffic. ARP requests
from dom0 don't reach domU. As to whether the UDP checksum is
fixed or not... It should be fixed but my ubuntu 10.04 domU
still can't get a DHCP lease without disabling checksum offload
on the vif interface. At least, the UDP checksum errors don't
get to dmesg, but it still seems to be something wrong with this
kernel version. Bellow I post the tcpdump's for a DHCP request
from domU, first with default settings and the second with
offload disabled (by sudo ethtool -K vif2.0 tx off sg off tso
off gso off gro off)
This dump is *with* checksum:
sudo tcpdump -i vif2.0 -n -vv
tcpdump: WARNING: vif2.0: no IPv4 address assigned
tcpdump: listening on vif2.0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
00:04:39.314038 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:16:36:47:57:87, length 300, xid 0x1882cf2d, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:04:39.413071 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49739, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
192.168.120.254.67 > 192.168.120.114.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300, xid 0x1882cf2d, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 192.168.120.114
Server-IP 192.168.120.254
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:04:44.315876 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:16:36:47:57:87, length 300, xid 0x1882cf2d, secs 5, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:04:44.316316 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49740, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
192.168.120.254.67 > 192.168.120.114.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300, xid 0x1882cf2d, secs 5, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 192.168.120.114
Server-IP 192.168.120.254
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:04:49.315733 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:04:50.315687 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:04:51.315737 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:04:57.324111 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:16:36:47:57:87, length 300, xid 0x1882cf2d, secs 18, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:04:57.324498 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49741, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
192.168.120.254.67 > 192.168.120.114.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300, xid 0x1882cf2d, secs 18, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 192.168.120.114
Server-IP 192.168.120.254
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:05:02.323734 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:05:03.323731 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:05:04.323732 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
This dump is *without* checksum:
00:05:56.313304 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:16:36:47:57:87, length 300, xid 0xfccb9d73, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:05:56.313902 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49742, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
192.168.120.254.67 > 192.168.120.114.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300, xid 0xfccb9d73, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 192.168.120.114
Server-IP 192.168.120.254
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:06:01.313723 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:06:02.313725 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:06:03.313724 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:06:04.320745 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:16:36:47:57:87, length 300, xid 0xfccb9d73, secs 8, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:06:04.321119 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49743, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
192.168.120.254.67 > 192.168.120.114.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300, xid 0xfccb9d73, secs 8, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 192.168.120.114
Server-IP 192.168.120.254
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:06:04.325804 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:16:36:47:57:87, length 300, xid 0xfccb9d73, secs 8, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:06:04.422863 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49744, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 336)
192.168.120.254.67 > 192.168.120.114.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 308, xid 0xfccb9d73, secs 8, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 192.168.120.114
Server-IP 192.168.120.254
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:06:07.315456 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 328)
0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:16:36:47:57:87, length 300, xid 0xfccb9d73, secs 8, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:06:07.440054 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49745, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 336)
192.168.120.254.67 > 192.168.120.114.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 308, xid 0xfccb9d73, secs 8, Flags [none] (0x0000)
Your-IP 192.168.120.114
Server-IP 192.168.120.254
Client-Ethernet-Address 00:16:36:47:57:87 [|bootp]
00:06:12.439828 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:06:13.439746 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
00:06:14.439674 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.120.114 tell 192.168.120.254, length 28
I hope this extra information can help to trace the problems.
Luís
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 03:59 -0700, Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> > stable-2.6.32.x (2.6.32.13) to check if it already had this problem.
>
> I would guess it's OK now ;)
>
> # git branch -D xen/stable-2.6.32.x
> # git checkout -b xen/stable-2.6.32.x origin/xen/stable-2.6.32.x
> # git pull
> # make menuconfig ( will show 2.6.32.14 at the moment)
> # make
>
> >have to disable offload do get dhcp to work on domU
>
> Run tcpdump on any other box on the LAN different from Dom0 hosting.
> DHCPDISCOVER is a broadcast request, so you should be able to capture
> wrong UDP checksums. Otherwise it's gonna be a miracle.
>
> Boris.
>
>
> --- On Thu, 6/3/10, Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
>
>
> From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen
> 4.0 with pvops kernel
> To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>,
> xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> 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@axiomasoft.pt>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
> > Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems
> > with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
> > To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
> > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
> > xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > 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@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
> > > >> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Xen-devel mailing list
> > > >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
> > > >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 31276 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel 2.6.32.15
2010-06-03 10:20 ` [Xen-users] " Luís Silva
2010-06-03 10:59 ` Re: [Xen-devel] " Boris Derzhavets
@ 2010-06-06 10:19 ` Boris Derzhavets
2010-06-06 16:43 ` [Xen-users] " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Boris Derzhavets @ 2010-06-06 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: luis.silva; +Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, xen-devel, xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15748 bytes --]
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.
Boris
--- On Thu, 6/3/10, Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
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@axiomasoft.pt> wrote:
From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
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@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>
>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 23410 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-users] Re: ARP problems with xen 4.0 with pvops kernel 2.6.32.15
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 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2010-06-06 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boris Derzhavets; +Cc: xen-devel, luis.silva, xen-users
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@axiomasoft.pt>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen 4.0
> with pvops kernel
> To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>,
> xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> 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@axiomasoft.pt>/*
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Luís Silva <luis.silva@axiomasoft.pt>
>> Subject: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] ARP problems with xen
>> 4.0 with pvops kernel
>> To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
>> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com
>> 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@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>>> >> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>>> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>
>>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> </mc/compose?to=Xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-06-06 16:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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 ` [Xen-devel] " Luís Silva
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
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.