On 2017.02.03 at 09:54 -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 05:31 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, I suspect the test is simply buggy ;)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > index
> > > 41dcbd568cbe2403f2a9e659669afe462a42e228..5394a39fcce964a7fe7075b1531a8a1e05550a54
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static void tcp_measure_rcv_mss(struct sock *sk,
> > > const struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > if (len >= icsk->icsk_ack.rcv_mss) {
> > > icsk->icsk_ack.rcv_mss = min_t(unsigned int, len,
> > > tcp_sk(sk)->advmss);
> > > - if (unlikely(icsk->icsk_ack.rcv_mss != len))
> > > + if (unlikely(icsk->icsk_ack.rcv_mss != len && skb_is_gso(skb)))
> > > tcp_gro_dev_warn(sk, skb);
> > > } else {
> > > /* Otherwise, we make more careful check taking into account,
> >
> > This wont really help.
> >
> > Our tcp_sk(sk)->advmss can be lower than the MSS used by the remote
> > peer.
> >
> > ip ro add .... advmss 512
>
> I don't follow. With a good driver, how can advmss be smaller than the
> MSS used by the remote peer? Even with the route entry above, I get
> segments just up to advmss, and no warning.
>
> Though yeah, interesting that this driver doesn't even support GRO. FCS
> perhaps?
>
> Markus, do you have other interfaces in your system? Which MTU do you
> use, and please try the (untested) patch below, to gather more debug
> info:
No, eth0 is the only interface. MTU = 1500.
Sure, I will try your patch. But I don't know how to reproduce the
issue, so you will have to wait until it triggers again.
--
Markus
