On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 4:45 PM Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Francesco, > > On 06.01.26 21:39, Francesco Valla wrote: > > Hello Harald, Oliver, > > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 08:43:42PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 06.01.26 17:50, Harald Mommer wrote: > >>>> With the plain 'cangen' you are not really flooding the interface, since > >>>> you are only sending a random CAN frame every 200ms. The only way I can > >>>> reproduce this behaviour in a consistent manner is running from the host: > >>>> > >>>> while true; do cansend vcan0 134#00; done > >>>> > >>>> which seems to generate the maximum amount of traffic. > >>>> > >>>> This is not of course a realistic bus load, but is leading the system > >>>> (at least on my setup) to a corner case somewhere. > >>> > >>> I have no idea how long the shell needs for a loop, always used cangen -g > >>> 0 to stress the setup which is most probably faster than the shell > >>> interpreter, and sometimes did this for both directions (RX and TX). > >>> > >>> Full load is a realistic setup. And even if it was not, if something > >>> stopped working or worse crashes torturing the setup this was a problem. > >>> > >> > >> Yes. cangen -g 0 -i <interface> creates full load - even on real CAN > >> interfaces. You can also generate fixed content if you want to omit the > >> generation of randomized content. 'cangen -?' prints a help text. > >> > > > > I agree with both of you - I was simply arguing that a plain 'cangen' > > with no parameters is not really loading the interface. > > > > For some reason, I was only able to trigger the unwanted behavior with > > cansend in a while loop and not with cangen -g 0, even with fixed ID and > > payload. However, I suspect the issue is a matter of timing and > > coincidences rather than load level. > > Yes, the difference is, that you open a new CAN socket each time with > cansend, while cangen opens one socket and pushes lots of frames into it. > > Btw. this should not lead to a stuck CAN interface. > > Is the interface usable from another terminal (with cansend/candump) or > how does this 'stuck interface' look like? >
I reported the issue here: https://github.com/rust-vmm/vhost-device/issues/923. It seems it is the device implementation. I am working on a fix. Matias
