Hello!
> No idea. Maybe you have changed some other configures (such as of ovs)
> without notice? Or, the ovs bridge interface resets?
I don't touch the ovs at all. Just shut down the guest, rebuild the qemu,
reinstall it, run the guest.
>
> BTW, would you please try my v1 patch set with above diff applied to
> see if the ping loss is still there. You might also want to run tcpdump
> with the dest host ovs bridge, to see if GARP is actually sent.
Retested with wireshark running on the host. I used my qemu patch instead, but
it should not matter at all:
--- cut ---
diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
index 1b6c5ac..5ca2987 100644
--- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
+++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
@@ -480,7 +480,12 @@ static int vhost_user_get_u64(struct vhost_dev *dev, int
request, uint64_t *u64)
static int vhost_user_get_features(struct vhost_dev *dev, uint64_t *features)
{
- return vhost_user_get_u64(dev, VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES, features);
+ int ret = vhost_user_get_u64(dev, VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES, features);
+
+ if (!ret) {
+ virtio_add_feature(features, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_ANNOUNCE);
+ }
+ return ret;
}
static int vhost_user_set_owner(struct vhost_dev *dev)
--- cut ---
So, here are both wireshark captures on the host side:
1. Without the patch
root at nfv_test_x86_64 / # tshark -i ovs-br0
Running as user "root" and group "root". This could be dangerous.
Capturing on 'ovs-br0'
1 0.000000 :: -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast Listener Report
Message v2
2 0.003304 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for
192.168.6.2 (Reply)
3 0.669957 :: -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast Listener Report
Message v2
4 0.858957 :: -> ff02::1:ff3b:831a ICMPv6 78 Neighbor
Solicitation for fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a
5 1.858968 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast
Listener Report Message v2
6 2.300948 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast
Listener Report Message v2
7 2.527088 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::2 ICMPv6 62 Router
Solicitation
8 2.527800 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for
192.168.6.2 (Request)
9 6.526814 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::2 ICMPv6 62 Router
Solicitation
10 10.526993 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::2 ICMPv6 62 Router
Solicitation
11 15.984632 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
12 15.984643 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
13 15.984772 192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1 ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request
id=0x0477, seq=1/256, ttl=64
14 15.984798 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2 ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply
id=0x0477, seq=1/256, ttl=64 (request in 13)
15 16.984970 192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1 ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request
id=0x0477, seq=2/512, ttl=64
16 16.984991 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2 ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply
id=0x0477, seq=2/512, ttl=64 (request in 15)
17 17.984956 192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1 ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request
id=0x0477, seq=3/768, ttl=64
18 17.984975 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2 ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply
id=0x0477, seq=3/768, ttl=64 (request in 17)
19 20.994535 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 Who has
192.168.6.2? Tell 192.168.6.1
20 20.994637 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> be:e1:71:c1:47:4d ARP 42 192.168.6.2 is at
52:54:00:3b:83:1a
^C20 packets captured
2. With the patch
root at nfv_test_x86_64 / # tshark -i ovs-br0
Running as user "root" and group "root". This could be dangerous.
Capturing on 'ovs-br0'
1 0.000000 :: -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast Listener Report
Message v2
2 0.000969 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for
192.168.6.2 (Reply)
3 0.156966 :: -> ff02::1:ff3b:831a ICMPv6 78 Neighbor
Solicitation for fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a
4 0.536948 :: -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast Listener Report
Message v2
5 1.156968 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast
Listener Report Message v2
6 1.312708 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::2 ICMPv6 62 Router
Solicitation
7 1.629960 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::16 ICMPv6 90 Multicast
Listener Report Message v2
8 2.314713 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for
192.168.6.2 (Request)
9 5.313333 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::2 ICMPv6 62 Router
Solicitation
10 9.315486 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::2 ICMPv6 62 Router
Solicitation
11 21.536450 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
12 21.536461 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
13 22.538937 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
14 22.538943 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
15 23.540937 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
16 23.540942 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
17 25.537519 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
18 25.537525 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
19 26.538939 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
20 26.538944 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
21 27.540937 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
22 27.540942 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
23 29.538475 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
24 29.538482 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
25 30.538935 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
26 30.538941 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
27 31.540935 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.1?
Tell 192.168.6.2
28 31.540941 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 192.168.6.1 is at
be:e1:71:c1:47:4d
^C28 packets captured
Obviously, the guest simply doesn't read incoming packets. ifconfig for the
interface on guest side shows:
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 9 overruns 0 frame 9
BTW, number 9 exactly matches the number of ARP replies from the host. The
question is - why? Looks like guest behavior changes
somehow. Is it a bug in guest? It's very strange, because in these sessions i
see only one difference in IPv6 packets:
4 0.858957 :: -> ff02::1:ff3b:831a ICMPv6 78 Neighbor
Solicitation for fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a
This is present in session #1 and missing from session #2. Can it affect the
whole thing somehow? But i don't even use IPv6.
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
