Hi! First of all, sorry for my delayed response! > functional test script under tools/testing/selftests/net covers VRF > tests and it ran clean for 5.4 last time I checked. There were a few > changes that went into 4.20 or 5.0 that might be tripping up this use > case, but I need a lot more information. I recently started an attempt to get those tests running on my machine (and a Fedora VM after that), however I had several issues with timeouts (when running `sudo -E make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS="net" run_tests`). May I ask if there are further things I need to take care of to get those tests successfully running? > are you saying wireguard worked with VRF in the past but is not now? No. WireGuard traffic is still working fine. The only issue is TCP-traffic through a VRF (which worked with 4.19, but doesn't anymore with 5.4 and 5.5). > 'ip vrf exec' loads a bpf program and that requires locked memory, so > yes, you need to increase it. Thanks a lot for the explanation! > Let's start with lookups: > > perf record -e fib:* -a -g > > perf script For the record, please note that I'm now on Linux 5.5.13. I ran the following command: ``` sudo perf record -e fib:* -a -g -- ssh root@92.60.36.231 -o ConnectTimeout=10s ``` The full output can be found here: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Ma27/a6f83e05f6ffede21c2e27d5c7d27098/raw/4852d97ee4860f7887e16f94a8ede4b4406f07bc/perf-report.txt Thanks! Maximilian On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 07:06:54PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 3/10/20 2:47 PM, Maximilian Bosch wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I suspect I hit the same issue which is why I decided to respond to this > > thread (if that's wrong please let me know). > > > >> sudo sysctl -a | grep l3mdev > >> > >> If not, > >> sudo sysctl net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1 > >> sudo sysctl net.ipv4.udp_l3mdev_accept=1 > >> sudo sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_l3mdev_accept=1 > > > > On my system (NixOS 20.03, Linux 5.5.8) those values are set to `1`, but > > I experience the same issue. > > > >> Since Kernel 5 though I am no longer able to update – but the issue is quite a curious one as some traffic appears to be fine (DNS lookups use VRF correctly) but others don’t (updating/upgrading the packages) > > > > I can reproduce this on 5.4.x and 5.5.x. To be more precise, I suspect > > that only TCP traffic hangs in the VRF. When I try to `ssh` through the > > VRF, I get a timeout, but UDP traffic e.g. from WireGuard works just fine. > > > > However, TCP traffic through a VRF works fine as well on 4.x (just tested this on > > 4.19.108 and 4.14.172). > > functional test script under tools/testing/selftests/net covers VRF > tests and it ran clean for 5.4 last time I checked. There were a few > changes that went into 4.20 or 5.0 that might be tripping up this use > case, but I need a lot more information. > > > > > I use VRFs to enslave my physical uplink interfaces (enp0s31f6, wlp2s0). > > My main routing table has a default route via my WireGuard Gateway and I > > only route my WireGuard uplink through the VRF. With this approach I can > > make sure that all of my traffic goes through the VPN and only the > > UDP packets of WireGuard will be routed through the uplink network. > > are you saying wireguard worked with VRF in the past but is not now? > > > > > > As mentioned above, the WireGuard traffic works perfectly fine, but I > > can't access `` via SSH: > > > > ``` > > $ ssh root@ -vvvv > > OpenSSH_8.2p1, OpenSSL 1.1.1d 10 Sep 2019 > > debug1: Reading configuration data /home/ma27/.ssh/config > > debug1: /home/ma27/.ssh/config line 5: Applying options for * > > debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config > > debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 5: Applying options for * > > debug2: resolve_canonicalize: hostname is address > > debug1: Control socket "/home/ma27/.ssh/master-root@:22" does not exist > > debug2: ssh_connect_direct > > debug1: Connecting to [] port 22. > > # Hangs here for a while > > ``` > > > > I get the following output when debugging this with `tcpdump`: > > > > ``` > > $ tcpdump -ni uplink tcp > > 20:06:40.409006 IP 10.214.40.237.58928 > .22: Flags [S], seq 4123706560, win 65495, options [mss 65495,sackOK,TS val 3798273519 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0 > > 20:06:40.439699 IP .22 > 10.214.40.237.58928: Flags [S.], seq 3289740891, ack 4123706561, win 65160, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 1100235016 ecr 3798273519,nop,wscale 7], length 0 > > 20:06:40.439751 IP 10.214.40.237.58928 > .22: Flags [R], seq 4123706561, win 0, length 0 > > that suggests not finding a matching socket, so sending a reset. > > > 20:06:41.451871 IP 10.214.40.237.58928 > .22: Flags [S], seq 4123706560, win 65495, options [mss 65495,sackOK,TS val 3798274562 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0 > > 20:06:41.484498 IP .22 > 10.214.40.237.58928: Flags [S.], seq 3306036877, ack 4123706561, win 65160, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 1100236059 ecr 3798274562,nop,wscale 7], length 0 > > 20:06:41.484528 IP 10.214.40.237.58928 > .22: Flags [R], seq 4123706561, win 0, length 0 > > ``` > > > > AFAICS every SYN will be terminated with an RST which is the reason why > > the connection hangs. > > > > I can work around the issue by using `ip vrf exec`. However I get the > > following error (unless I run `ulimit -l 2048`): > > > > ``` > > Failed to load BPF prog: 'Operation not permitted' > > ``` > > 'ip vrf exec' loads a bpf program and that requires locked memory, so > yes, you need to increase it. > > Let's start with lookups: > > perf record -e fib:* -a -g > > perf script > > That shows the lookups (inputs, table id, result) and context (stack > trace). That might give some context.