Re: pf overlapping IPv6 fragments

Hello, > more strictly here. Drop the whole fragment state if IPv6 fragments > appear which have invalid length, fragment-offset or more-fragment-bit. I like the idea being strict here. I don't like 'goto overlap_fragment'. the 'overlap_fragment' as a name of jump target is bit confusing

Re: Intel 10GbE (ix) driver update - Looking for tests

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 15:37 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > The remaining diff after the interrupt change was committed. I have > kept KERNEL_LOCK/UNLOCK dance since those functions can run in > parallel with similar code triggered by ifconfig so better safe than > sorry. > > I still need to go

iwm ack rates, again

We inherited a bug(?) from Linux where the iwm driver adds all mandatory OFDM rates (up to 24Mbit/s) to the ACK rate set if the AP does not advertise _any_ basic OFDM rates. This kills traffic at the edge of the WLAN cell because e.g. RTS is sent at 24Mbit/s instead of 6Mbit/s and rarely gets throu

Re: reduce block ack Rx latency

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:01:34PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > While playing around with rate scaling, and testing behaviour when > > increasing the distance to the AP, I noticed that a lot of successfully > > received frames

Re: pf af-to route output

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:38:07PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > Hi, > > The !r->rt case is only used by af-to. pf_route6() calls ip6_output() > to do the work while pf_route() has some custom implementation for > that. It is simpler to call ip_output() or ip6_output() from > pf_test() directl

Re: Intel 10GbE (ix) driver update - Looking for tests

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 13:27 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 23:23 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 22:24 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 23:04 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I've done a massive up

Re: reduce block ack Rx latency

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > While playing around with rate scaling, and testing behaviour when > increasing the distance to the AP, I noticed that a lot of successfully > received frames end up getting stuck or discarded in the block ack > buffer logic. > > I

reduce block ack Rx latency

While playing around with rate scaling, and testing behaviour when increasing the distance to the AP, I noticed that a lot of successfully received frames end up getting stuck or discarded in the block ack buffer logic. In this situation, I see icmp echo replies arrive in the output of tcpdump -i

Re: pf IPv6 hop-by-hop after fragment header

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 09:43:43AM +0100, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > Side Note: I did quick check to RFCs. It seems to me there is a 'bug' in > specification. RFC 2460 says: > >When more than one extension header is used in the same packet, it is >recommended that those h

Re: Intel 10GbE (ix) driver update - Looking for tests

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 23:23 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 22:24 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 23:04 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've done a massive update of our ix(4) driver that brings > > > support for X550 family of c

per cpu counters for icmp

This is much like the other per cpu counter conversions, except the counter enum has gaps in it to match the arrays in struct icmpstat. Index: icmp_var.h === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/icmp_var.h,v retrieving revision 1.14 diff -u

Re: pf IPv6 hop-by-hop after fragment header

Hello, > I found the link http://www.secfu.net/ in one of sthen@'s mails. > There the author mentions that we accept IPv6 hop-by-hop headers > after fragment headers. In fact this is a result of my pf fragment > reassembly, so add an extra check there. > > ok? I'm O.K. with it. Side No