Net crash in ath on FREEBSD-7 STABLE
Hi, I get the following when I run portupgrade and it tries to hit the network for a package on stable. It looks like something has been broken in ath? Seeing as I don't update very often it could have been around for a while. Kernel is GENERIC. Modules are kernel, snd_ich, sound, aio and linux. If anyone wants to look at this and needs more info, let me know. Mark GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type "show copying" to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details. This GDB was configured as "amd64-marcel-freebsd"... Unread portion of the kernel message buffer: Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode cpuid = 2; apic id = 02 fault virtual address = 0x0 fault code = supervisor read data, page not present instruction pointer = 0x8:0x8025e2f2 stack pointer = 0x10:0xaec9e630 frame pointer = 0x10:0xff00018fa100 code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1 processor eflags= interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0 current process = 16516 (fetch) trap number = 12 panic: page fault cpuid = 2 Uptime: 2m56s Physical memory: 2034 MB Dumping 251 MB: (CTRL-C to abort) 236 220 (CTRL-C to abort) 204 188 172 156 140 124 108 92 76 60 (CTRL-C to abort) 44 28 12 Reading symbols from /boot/kernel/snd_ich.ko...Reading symbols from / boot/kernel/snd_ich.ko.symbols...done. done. Loaded symbols for /boot/kernel/snd_ich.ko Reading symbols from /boot/kernel/sound.ko...Reading symbols from / boot/kernel/sound.ko.symbols...done. done. Loaded symbols for /boot/kernel/sound.ko Reading symbols from /boot/kernel/aio.ko...Reading symbols from /boot/ kernel/aio.ko.symbols...done. done. Loaded symbols for /boot/kernel/aio.ko Reading symbols from /boot/kernel/linux.ko...Reading symbols from / boot/kernel/linux.ko.symbols...done. done. Loaded symbols for /boot/kernel/linux.ko #0 doadump () at pcpu.h:194 194 pcpu.h: No such file or directory. in pcpu.h (kgdb) where #0 doadump () at pcpu.h:194 #1 0x0004 in ?? () #2 0x804964a9 in boot (howto=260) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:418 #3 0x804968ad in panic (fmt=0x104 bounds>) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:572 #4 0x8075ff74 in trap_fatal (frame=0xff00044d66a0, eva=18446742974267905128) at /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/trap.c:724 #5 0x80760345 in trap_pfault (frame=0xaec9e580, usermode=0) at /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/trap.c:641 #6 0x80760c88 in trap (frame=0xaec9e580) at /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/trap.c:410 #7 0x8074664e in calltrap () at /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/exception.S:169 #8 0x8025e2f2 in ath_start (ifp=0xff00011cd800) at /usr/src/sys/dev/ath/if_ath.c:1747 #9 0x8052fab6 in ether_output_frame (ifp=0xff00011cd800, m=0xff000421eb00) at /usr/src/sys/net/if_ethersubr.c:405 #10 0x805300e2 in ether_output (ifp=0xff00011cd800, m=0xff000421eb00, dst=Variable "dst" is not available. ) at /usr/src/sys/net/if_ethersubr.c:374 #11 0x805755df in ip_output (m=0xff000421eb00, opt=Variable "opt" is not available. ) at /usr/src/sys/netinet/ip_output.c:551 #12 0x805ce48c in tcp_output (tp=0xff0004216b60) at /usr/src/sys/netinet/tcp_output.c:1135 #13 0x805d880d in tcp_usr_rcvd (so=Variable "so" is not available. ) at /usr/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c:738 #14 0x804ef5cf in soreceive_generic (so=0xff001040c570, psa=0x0, uio=0xaec9eb00, mp0=Variable "mp0" is not available. ) at /usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_socket.c:1825 #15 0x804cee1d in dofileread (td=0xff00044d66a0, fd=3, fp=0xff00047e4168, auio=0xaec9eb00, offset=Variable "offset" is not available. ) at file.h:242 #16 0x804cf18e in kern_readv (td=0xff00044d66a0, fd=3, auio=0xaec9eb00) at /usr/src/sys/kern/sys_generic.c:192 #17 0x804cf27c in read (td=0x80e62000, uap=0xff00044d66a0) at /usr/src/sys/kern/sys_generic.c:108 #18 0x807605c7 in syscall (frame=0xaec9ec70) at /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/trap.c:852 #19 0x8074685b in Xfast_syscall () at /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/exception.S:290 #20 0x000800c0297c in ?? () Previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?) ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: arplookup x.x.x.x failed: host is not on local network
David DeSimone wrote: [ ... ] Again, I did see these messages in my environment, but in my case, the error was correct: The IP *was not* on the local network. The reason being that we had multiple subnets configured on the same broadcast domain, so the BSD box could indeed hear ARP for subnets it did not know about. I don't know why the box feels moved to complain about this, however. I would think it should not care. It's good practice for machines intended to be on different subnets to be in different collision domains. Seeing traffic to or from the wrong network should be considered a potential "red flag", warning that there might be a network misconfiguration that could compromise security. In particular, if you want to securely host a bunch of client machines, setting them up on individual /30 subnets using a multiport firewall or a BSD box with a couple of 4-port NIC cards, rather than a switch, is a good idea. While this situation is something which is supposedly well-suited for VLANs, in practice most switches cannot be relied upon to actually prevent traffic from leaking outside of the specified VLAN. This is more common for ARP traffic, which is sent to the all-ones MAC and may well get forwarded to all ports regardless of VLAN tagging, particularly if the switch is under load and has switched to some kind of "fast forwarding" mode or if it tends to consider all ports trunk ports by default or via dubious autolearning algorithms Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
One-liner for setting IPv6 address and IPv4 endpoints on gif interface?
Hi, list. I set up an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel from Hurricane Electric using a gif(4) interface using the commands: ifconfig gif0 tunnel [source IPv4] [destination IPv4] ifconfig gif0 inet6 [source IPv6] [destination IPv6] prefixlen 128 route -n add -inet6 default [destination IPv6] I'm wondering whether there's a one-liner for executing the first two commands, or some non-one-liner way of making it happen through /etc/rc.conf. Thanks. -Boris ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: One-liner for setting IPv6 address and IPv4 endpoints on gif interface?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 03:02:35PM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: > Hi, list. I set up an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel from Hurricane Electric > using a gif(4) interface using the commands: > > ifconfig gif0 tunnel [source IPv4] [destination IPv4] > ifconfig gif0 inet6 [source IPv6] [destination IPv6] prefixlen 128 > route -n add -inet6 default [destination IPv6] > > I'm wondering whether there's a one-liner for executing the first two > commands, or some non-one-liner way of making it happen through > /etc/rc.conf. Thanks. > > -Boris Not sure about one-liner, but that's what I'm using in rc.conf (Hurricane Electric's tunnelbroker.net tunnel): gif_interfaces="gif0" gifconfig_gif0="src_ipv4 dst_ipv4" ipv6_enable="YES" ipv6_ifconfig_gif0="src_ipv6 dst_ipv6 prefixlen 128" ipv6_defaultrouter="dst_ipv6" HTH, Yuri ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp]
Dear Paul, I tried all of this :/ still, 256/512 descriptors seem to work the best. Happy to let you log into the machine and fiddle around if you want :) yes, but I'm shure I will also not be able to achieve much more pps. As it seems that you hit hardware-software-level-barriers, my only idea is to test dragonfly bsd, which seems to have less software overhead. I don't think you will be able to route 64byte packets at 1gbit wirespeed (2Mpps) with a current x86 platform. I hoped to reach 1Mpps with the hardware I mentioned some mails before, but 2Mpps is far far away. Currently I get 160kpps via pci-32mbit-33mhz-1,2ghz mobile pentium. Perhaps you have some better luck at some different hardware systems (ppc, mips, ..?) or use freebsd only for routing-table-updates and special network-cards (netfpga) for real routing. Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp]
ULE + PREEMPTION for non SMP no major differences with SMP with ULE/4BSD and preemption ON/OFF 32 bit UP test coming up with new cpu and I'm installing dragonfly sometime this weekend :] UP: 1mpps in one direction with no firewall/no routing table is not too bad, but 1mpps both directions is the goal here 700kpps with full bgp table in one direction is not too bad Ipfw needs a lot of work, barely gets 500kpps with no routing table with a few ipfw rules loaded.. that's horrible Linux barely takes a hit when you start loading iptables rules , but then again linux has a HUGE problem with routing random packet sources/ports .. grr My problem Is I need some box to do fast routing and some to do firewall.. :/ I'll have 32 bit 7-stable UP test with ipfw/routing table and then move on to dragonfly. I'll post the dragonfly results here as well as sign up for their mailing list. Bart Van Kerckhove wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul / Ingo, I tried all of this :/ still, 256/512 descriptors seem to work the best. Happy to let you log into the machine and fiddle around if you want :) I've been watching this thread closely, since I'm in a very similair situation. A few questions/remarks: Does ULE provide better performance than 4BSD for forwarding? Did you try freebsd4 as well? This thread had a report about that quite opposite to my own experiences, -4 seemed to be a lot faster at forwarding than anything else I 've tried so far. Obviously the thing I'm interested in is IMIX - and 64byte packets. Does anyone have any benchmarks for DragonFly? I asked around on IRC, but that nor google turned up any useful results. I don't think you will be able to route 64byte packets at 1gbit wirespeed (2Mpps) with a current x86 platform. Are there actual hardware related reasons this should not be possible, or is this purely lack of dedicated work towards this goal? Theres a "sun" used at quagga dev as bgp-route-server. http://quagga.net/route-server.php (but they don't answered my question regarding fw-performance). the Quagga guys are running a sun T1000 (niagara 1) route server - I happen to have the machine in my racks, please let me know if you want to run some tests on it, I'm sure they won't mind ;-) It should also make a great testbed for SMP performance testing imho (and they're pretty cheap these days) Also, feel free to use me as a relay for your questions, they're not always very reachable. Perhaps you have some better luck at some different hardware systems (ppc, mips, ..?) or use freebsd only for routing-table-updates and special network-cards (netfpga) for real routing. The netfpga site seems more or less dead - is this project still alive? It does look like a very interesting idea, even though it's currently quite linux-centric (and according to docs doesn't have VLAN nor ip6 support, the former being quite a dealbreaker) Paul: I'm looking forward to the C2D 32bit benchmarks (maybe throw in a freebsd4 and/or dragonfly bench if you can..) - appreciate the lots of information you are providing us :) Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, Bart Van Kerckhove http://friet.net/pgp.txt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBSG/tMgoIFchBM0BKEQKUSQCcCJqsw2wtUX7HQi050HEDYX3WPuMAnjmi eca31f7WQ/oXq9tJ8TEDN3CA =YGYq -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp]
UP 32 bit test vs 64 bit: negligible difference in forwarding performance without polling slightly better polling performance but still errors at lower packet rates same massive hit with ipfw loaded Installing dragonfly in a bit.. If anyone has a really fast PPC type system or SUN or something i'd love to try it :) Something with a really big L1 cache :P Paul wrote: ULE + PREEMPTION for non SMP no major differences with SMP with ULE/4BSD and preemption ON/OFF 32 bit UP test coming up with new cpu and I'm installing dragonfly sometime this weekend :] UP: 1mpps in one direction with no firewall/no routing table is not too bad, but 1mpps both directions is the goal here 700kpps with full bgp table in one direction is not too bad Ipfw needs a lot of work, barely gets 500kpps with no routing table with a few ipfw rules loaded.. that's horrible Linux barely takes a hit when you start loading iptables rules , but then again linux has a HUGE problem with routing random packet sources/ports .. grr My problem Is I need some box to do fast routing and some to do firewall.. :/ I'll have 32 bit 7-stable UP test with ipfw/routing table and then move on to dragonfly. I'll post the dragonfly results here as well as sign up for their mailing list. Bart Van Kerckhove wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul / Ingo, I tried all of this :/ still, 256/512 descriptors seem to work the best. Happy to let you log into the machine and fiddle around if you want :) I've been watching this thread closely, since I'm in a very similair situation. A few questions/remarks: Does ULE provide better performance than 4BSD for forwarding? Did you try freebsd4 as well? This thread had a report about that quite opposite to my own experiences, -4 seemed to be a lot faster at forwarding than anything else I 've tried so far. Obviously the thing I'm interested in is IMIX - and 64byte packets. Does anyone have any benchmarks for DragonFly? I asked around on IRC, but that nor google turned up any useful results. I don't think you will be able to route 64byte packets at 1gbit wirespeed (2Mpps) with a current x86 platform. Are there actual hardware related reasons this should not be possible, or is this purely lack of dedicated work towards this goal? Theres a "sun" used at quagga dev as bgp-route-server. http://quagga.net/route-server.php (but they don't answered my question regarding fw-performance). the Quagga guys are running a sun T1000 (niagara 1) route server - I happen to have the machine in my racks, please let me know if you want to run some tests on it, I'm sure they won't mind ;-) It should also make a great testbed for SMP performance testing imho (and they're pretty cheap these days) Also, feel free to use me as a relay for your questions, they're not always very reachable. Perhaps you have some better luck at some different hardware systems (ppc, mips, ..?) or use freebsd only for routing-table-updates and special network-cards (netfpga) for real routing. The netfpga site seems more or less dead - is this project still alive? It does look like a very interesting idea, even though it's currently quite linux-centric (and according to docs doesn't have VLAN nor ip6 support, the former being quite a dealbreaker) Paul: I'm looking forward to the C2D 32bit benchmarks (maybe throw in a freebsd4 and/or dragonfly bench if you can..) - appreciate the lots of information you are providing us :) Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, Bart Van Kerckhove http://friet.net/pgp.txt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBSG/tMgoIFchBM0BKEQKUSQCcCJqsw2wtUX7HQi050HEDYX3WPuMAnjmi eca31f7WQ/oXq9tJ8TEDN3CA =YGYq -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul / Ingo, > >> I tried all of this :/ still, 256/512 descriptors seem to work the >> best. Happy to let you log into the machine and fiddle around if you >> want :) I've been watching this thread closely, since I'm in a very similair situation. A few questions/remarks: Does ULE provide better performance than 4BSD for forwarding? Did you try freebsd4 as well? This thread had a report about that quite opposite to my own experiences, -4 seemed to be a lot faster at forwarding than anything else I 've tried so far. Obviously the thing I'm interested in is IMIX - and 64byte packets. Does anyone have any benchmarks for DragonFly? I asked around on IRC, but that nor google turned up any useful results. > I don't think you will be able to route 64byte packets at 1gbit > wirespeed (2Mpps) with a current x86 platform. Are there actual hardware related reasons this should not be possible, or is this purely lack of dedicated work towards this goal? >Theres a "sun" used at quagga dev as bgp-route-server. >http://quagga.net/route-server.php >(but they don't answered my question regarding fw-performance). the Quagga guys are running a sun T1000 (niagara 1) route server - I happen to have the machine in my racks, please let me know if you want to run some tests on it, I'm sure they won't mind ;-) It should also make a great testbed for SMP performance testing imho (and they're pretty cheap these days) Also, feel free to use me as a relay for your questions, they're not always very reachable. > Perhaps you have some better luck at some different hardware systems > (ppc, mips, ..?) or use freebsd only for routing-table-updates and > special network-cards (netfpga) for real routing. The netfpga site seems more or less dead - is this project still alive? It does look like a very interesting idea, even though it's currently quite linux-centric (and according to docs doesn't have VLAN nor ip6 support, the former being quite a dealbreaker) Paul: I'm looking forward to the C2D 32bit benchmarks (maybe throw in a freebsd4 and/or dragonfly bench if you can..) - appreciate the lots of information you are providing us :) Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, Bart Van Kerckhove http://friet.net/pgp.txt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBSG/tMgoIFchBM0BKEQKUSQCcCJqsw2wtUX7HQi050HEDYX3WPuMAnjmi eca31f7WQ/oXq9tJ8TEDN3CA =YGYq -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp]
Bart Van Kerckhove wrote: The netfpga site seems more or less dead - is this project still alive? It does look like a very interesting idea, even though it's currently quite linux-centric (and according to docs doesn't have VLAN nor ip6 support, the former being quite a dealbreaker) Just last Thursday they made another release so it certainly doesn't look dead. I've been following the project for awhile now to see where it's going to go. The lack of FreeBSD support isn't great but I doubt it's going to happen until someone steps up and makes it so. The same is likely true for VLAN support. So far it's primarily been a proof of concept from what I can tell and could be molded into any number of different applications with the appropriate support. Considering all high performance routing platforms separate the management and routing/switching into two (or more) different hardware sections it wouldn't surprise me at all to see this as the only real option to get some serious routing and firewalling performance out of i386/amd64 type servers. Throwing faster and faster cpus at it is only going to get you so far (re: opteron 2212 vs ). Even so, 1.1Mpps is a considerable rate. Regards, Chris ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp]
Bart Van Kerckhove wrote: Perhaps you have some better luck at some different hardware systems (ppc, mips, ..?) or use freebsd only for routing-table-updates and special network-cards (netfpga) for real routing. The netfpga site seems more or less dead - is this project still alive? It does look like a very interesting idea, even though it's currently quite linux-centric (and according to docs doesn't have VLAN nor ip6 support, the former being quite a dealbreaker) netfpga is very much alive. I'm on the mailing lists.. but it is summer break and it's an academically driven project. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
