lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: r8169 regression: UDP packets dropped intermittantly
Resend to netdev.  LKML CCed in case anyone in the wider kernel community
can suggest a way forward. Please CC responses if replying only to LKML.

It seems that this 4+ year old regression in the r8169 driver (documented in
this thread on netdev beginning on 9 March 2013) will never be fixed,
despite the identification of the commit which broke it. Cards using this
driver will therefore remain unusable for certain workloads utilising UDP.

----- Original message from 14 Nov 2017 -----

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:09:23 +1030
From: Jonathan Woithe
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: r8169 regression: UDP packets dropped intermittantly

As far as I am aware there were no follow up comments to my last post on
this subject on 24 March 2017. The text of that post is included below for
reference. To summarise: a short test program which reliably triggered the
problem was written in the hope it would assist in the repair of this
regression.

Today I ran the tests on the 4.14 kernel. The problem is still present. If
the same machine is run under a 4.3 kernel with the hacked r8169 driver the
problem does not occur. Using the 4.3 r8169 driver triggers the problem.
It also works without trouble under 2.6.35.11 (the kernel we've stuck with
due to the problem affecting most newer kernels).

To recap the history of this thread, the misbehaviour of the r8169 driver in
the presence of small UDP packets affects kernels newer than 3.3. The
initial post in this thread was on 9 March 2013. The regression was
introduced with commit da78dbff2e05630921c551dbbc70a4b7981a8fff.

Since this regression has persisted for more than 4 years, is there any
chance that it will be fixed? The inability to run newer kernels has
prevented us from providing them as upgrades in our products. If this
problem in the r8169 driver will never be fixed, it seems we'll have to find
a supply of a PCI/PCIe NIC which doesn't utilise this driver. Of course
this won't help those whose systems in the field are fitted with the
r8169-based card.

Regards
jonathan

Post from Mar 24, 2017:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:22:50AM +0200, Francois Romieu wrote:
> > Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@atrad.com.au> :
> > [...]
> > > to mainline (in which case I'll keep watching out for it)? Or is the
> > > out-of-tree workaround mentioned above considered to be the long term
> > > fix for those who encounter the problem?
> >
> > It's a workaround. Nothing less, nothing more.
>
> Recently I have had a chance to revisit this issue. I have written a
> program (r8196-test, source is included below) which recreates the problem
> without requiring our external hardware devices. That is, this program
> triggers the fault when run between two networked computers. To use, two
> PCs are needed. One (the "master") has an rtl8169 network card fitted (ours
> has a Netgear GA311, but the problem has been seen with others too from
> memory). The network hardware of the other computer (the "slave") isn't
> important. First run
>
> ./r8196-test
>
> on the slave, followed by
>
> ./r8196-test <IPv4 address of slave>
>
> on the master. When running stock kernel version 4.3 the master stops
> reliably within a minute or so with a timeout, indicating (in this case)
> that the response packet never arrived within the 0.5 second timeout period.
> The ID whose response was never received by the master is reported as having
> been seen (and a response sent) by the slave.
>
> If I substitute the forward ported r8169 driver mentioned earlier in this
> thread into kernel 4.3, the above program sequence runs seemingly
> indefinitely without any timeouts (runtime is beyond two hours as of this
> writing, compared to tens of seconds with the standard driver).
>
> This demonstrates that the problem is independent of our custom network
> devices and allows the fault to be recreated using commodity hardware.
>
> Does this make it any easier to develop a mainline fix for the regression?
>
> Regards
> jonathan
>
> /*
> * To test, the "master" mode is run on a PC with an RTL-8169 card.
> * The "slave" mode is run on any other PC. "Master" mode is activated
> * by providing the IP of the slave PC on the command line. The slave
> * should be started before the master; without a running slave the master
> * will time out.
> *
> * This code is in the public domain.
> */
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/socket.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <netinet/in.h>
> #include <arpa/inet.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> #include <errno.h>
>
> unsigned char ping_payload[] = {
> 0x00, 0x00,
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> };
>
> #define PING_PAYLOAD_SIZE 6
>
> unsigned char ack_payload[] = {
> 0x12, 0x34,
> 0x01, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00,
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> };
>
> #define ACK_PAYLOAD_SIZE 14
>
> #define UDP_PORT 49491
>
> signed int open_udp(const char *target_addr)
> {
> struct sockaddr_in local_addr;
> struct timeval tv;
> int sock;
>
> sock = socket(PF_INET,SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
> if (sock < 0) {
> return -1;
> }
>
> tv.tv_sec = 0;
> tv.tv_usec = 500000;
> setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDTIMEO, (char *)&tv, sizeof(tv));
> setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, (char *)&tv, sizeof(tv));
>
> memset(&local_addr, 0, sizeof(local_addr));
> local_addr.sin_family = AF_INET;
> local_addr.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY;
> local_addr.sin_port = htons(49491);
> if (bind(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&local_addr,
> sizeof(struct sockaddr)) < 0) {
> return -1;
> }
>
> if (target_addr != NULL) {
> struct sockaddr_in dest_addr;
> memset(&dest_addr, 0, sizeof(dest_addr));
> dest_addr.sin_family = AF_INET;
> dest_addr.sin_port = htons(49491);
> if (inet_aton(target_addr, &dest_addr.sin_addr) < 0) {
> return -1;
> }
> if (connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&dest_addr,
> sizeof(dest_addr)) < 0) {
> return -1;
> }
> }
> return sock;
> }
>
> void master(const char *target_addr)
> {
> signed int id = 0;
> int sock = open_udp(target_addr);
>
> printf("master()\n");
> if (sock < 0) {
> return;
> }
>
> for (;; id++) {
> unsigned char buf[1024];
> signed int n;
> ping_payload[0] = id & 0xff;
> if (send(sock, ping_payload, PING_PAYLOAD_SIZE, 0) < 0) {
> break;
> }
> n = recv(sock, buf, sizeof(buf), 0);
> if (n == -1) {
> if (errno == EAGAIN) {
> printf("id 0x%02x: no response received (timeout)\n",
> ping_payload[0]);
> break;
> }
> } else {
> printf("id 0x%02x: recv %d\n", buf[0], n);
> }
> usleep(10000);
> }
> close(sock);
> }
>
> void slave()
> {
> int sock = open_udp(NULL);
>
> printf("slave()\n");
> if (sock < 0) {
> return;
> }
>
> for ( ; ; ) {
> struct sockaddr master_addr;
> unsigned char buf[1024];
> signed int n;
>
> socklen_t len = sizeof(master_addr);
> n = recvfrom(sock, buf, sizeof(buf), 0, &master_addr, &len);
> if (n == PING_PAYLOAD_SIZE) {
> printf("id 0x%02x: recv %d, sending %d\n", buf[0], n,
> ACK_PAYLOAD_SIZE);
> ack_payload[0] = buf[0];
> sendto(sock, ack_payload, ACK_PAYLOAD_SIZE, 0, &master_addr, len);
> }
> }
>
> close(sock);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> if (argc > 1) {
> master(argv[1]);
> } else {
> slave();
> }
> return 0;
> }

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-18 07:13    [W:0.078 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site