> On 29 Oct 2024, at 00:55, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > > On 2024/10/29 00:11, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: >>> - Set up vio(4) interfaces with -tcplro and enable wg(4) interfaces as >>> usual (In my case, I'm routing IPv4 and IPv6 traffic through wg(4) >>> tunnel). >> >> So, problem lays in vio(4). > > Or perhaps that is a trigger but the problem is elsewhere.
Look. wg(4) is suspicious by itself, so it will be very useful to determine where the problem lays, within wg(4) or not. em(4) has no LRO support, but it had [1] and may be still has some problems with TSO, so I’m not surprised that wg(4) crashes trying to alloc mbuf(9) on hosts with em(4) too. 1. http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/pci/if_em.c.diff?r1=1.373&r2=1.374 > > bentley@ saw similar wg(4) problems on a machine with just em(4): > > em0 at pci0 dev 31 function 6 "Intel I219-V" rev 0x21: msi, address > 94:c6:91:a3:6d:8a > > Now, if I looked at the right files, only ix(4) vm(4) vio(4) have LRO - > em(4) does not. > > We do support TSO on some em(4). Though, while I am not certain, I don't > think we do on I219-V... Anthony, do you still have that machine available? > Can you do an "ifconfig em hwfeatures" please so we can be sure? > > My best guess from the information I have (I don't think it's possible > to map from a dmesg attach line to a mac_type without more information - > the pci id isn't printed) is that it's an em_pch_spt which doesn't do > TSO... >
