https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
--- Comment #11 from Michael Tuexen ---
Yes, I do. Using net.add_addr_allfibs=0, I get routing tables like you have.
However, I had to call setfib() before socket() in your examples. With that I
can reproduce the problem.
--
You are recei
Notice to Appear,
You have not paid for driving on a toll road.
You are kindly asked to pay your debt as soon as possible.
You can review the invoice in the attachment.
Kind regards,
Victor Terry,
E-ZPass Agent.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing li
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
--- Comment #10 from Craig Rodrigues ---
(In reply to Michael Tuexen from comment #8)
Are you good to go with having an environment to repro the problem?
My routing table looks like this
FIB 0
=
netstat -nr
default10.47.1
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Christopher Hilton
wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Christopher Sean Hilton
> wrote:
>
> > Good afternoon and thank you in advance.
> >
> > I'm running FreeBSD 9.3-STABLE:
> >
> > FreeBSD anza.example.com 9.3-STABLE \
> > FreeBSD 9.3-STABLE #0 r269
On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
> Good afternoon and thank you in advance.
>
> I'm running FreeBSD 9.3-STABLE:
>
> FreeBSD anza.example.com 9.3-STABLE \
> FreeBSD 9.3-STABLE #0 r269627: Wed Aug 6 13:48:46 EDT 2014 \
> root@dagobah:/usr/obj/amd64/usr/src
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
Alan Somers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asom...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
--- Comment #8 from Michael Tuexen ---
OK, I need
sysctl -w net.add_addr_allfibs=0
to reproduce your problem.
Best regards
Michael
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #13 from Franco Fichtner ---
Looks good now, thanks Ermal. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |Open
URL|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #12 from Ermal Luçi ---
Moved to https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2828
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
Michael Tuexen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |In Progress
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #11 from Ermal Luçi ---
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #10)
Ok i am posting this to phabricator since i am a freebsd developer :)
Just for the reference here is another iteration of the patch
diff --git a/sys/netinet/
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ko...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #10
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #9 from Franco Fichtner ---
The previous code in place before the "bad" revision in 2008 accessed la, made
its changes and called arprequest() after releasing the lock, like the other
code block still does. You can maybe set a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #8 from Ermal Luçi ---
(In reply to Franco Fichtner from comment #7)
Oh you refer to the decrement of the la preempt value.
Yeah but i highly dislike unlock and relock again code paths, that can be a
solution.
Or moving this to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #7 from Franco Fichtner ---
You read a value from a lock-protected entity, you acquire a (read) lock. You
write a value to a lock-protected entity, you acquire a (write) lock. After
the patch, there is neither. Do you want to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
--- Comment #7 from Michael Tuexen ---
Here is what I do and what happens to the routing table. As you see, a route
gets added to fib 0. Is this expected? Intended?
> ifconfig em0
em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
options=9b
ether
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #6 from Ermal Luçi ---
(In reply to Franco Fichtner from comment #4)
Yeah but its a very quick read to me which does not create any race of sort
from what i could tell.
For sure la will be there when the fields are accessed.
--
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #5 from Franco Fichtner ---
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/ec826ad5c7f97de814529d3b3bae7950f91d9a5d#diff-e08033318b7a3c6cc3ffb3e431a0f8f2L461
vs.
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/ec826ad5c7f97de814529d3b3bae7
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
--- Comment #6 from Craig Rodrigues ---
You need to set up a default IP address and routing table
on em0 that is *not* a 172 address.
That way, if you do:
netstat -r
you will see the default routing table,
and if you do
setfib 2 netstat
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #4 from Franco Fichtner ---
la is being read and modified after unlock with the attached patch. Though it
looks like arprequest() may indeed work as expected without the lock held. Not
sure if unlock/lock around arprequest is
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
--- Comment #3 from Ermal Luçi ---
Here is a patch against HEAD of FreeBSD.
Also take a look at this link for a trace
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4685
If its ok with you Andrey i would like to commit this one.
diff --git a/sys/net
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200323
Andrey V. Elsukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200379
--- Comment #5 from Michael Tuexen ---
Hi Craig,
when setting up two VMs as suggested, they can just reach each other.
Even ping 172.8.1.4 works, I don't need setfib 2 ping 172.8.1.4.
What config do I need to test the fib stuff. I don't t
24 matches
Mail list logo
