This change introduces a new sysctl parameter, arp_evict_nocarrier.
When set (default) the ARP cache will be cleared on a NOCARRIER event.
This new option has been defaulted to '1' which maintains existing
behavior.
Clearing the ARP cache on NOCARRIER is relatively new, introduced by:
commit 859bd2ef1f
Author: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Oct 11 20:33:49 2018 -0700
net: Evict neighbor entries on carrier down
The reason for this changes is to prevent the ARP cache from being
cleared when a wireless device roams. Specifically for wireless roams
the ARP cache should not be cleared because the underlying network has not
changed. Clearing the ARP cache in this case can introduce significant
delays sending out packets after a roam.
A user reported such a situation here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/CACsRnHWa47zpx3D1oDq9JYnZWniS8yBwW1h0WAVZ6vrbwL_S0w@mail.gmail.com/
After some investigation it was found that the kernel was holding onto
packets until ARP finished which resulted in this 1 second delay. It
was also found that the first ARP who-has was never responded to,
which is actually what caues the delay. This change is more or less
working around this behavior, but again, there is no reason to clear
the cache on a roam anyways.
As for the unanswered who-has, we know the packet made it OTA since
it was seen while monitoring. Why it never received a response is
unknown. In any case, since this is a problem on the AP side of things
all that can be done is to work around it until it is solved.
Some background on testing/reproducing the packet delay:
Hardware:
- 2 access points configured for Fast BSS Transition (Though I don't
see why regular reassociation wouldn't have the same behavior)
- Wireless station running IWD as supplicant
- A device on network able to respond to pings (I used one of the APs)
Procedure:
- Connect to first AP
- Ping once to establish an ARP entry
- Start a tcpdump
- Roam to second AP
- Wait for operstate UP event, and note the timestamp
- Start pinging
Results:
Below is the tcpdump after UP. It was recorded the interface went UP at
10:42:01.432875.
10:42:01.461871 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.254.1 tell 192.168.254.71, length 28
10:42:02.497976 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.254.1 tell 192.168.254.71, length 28
10:42:02.507162 ARP, Reply 192.168.254.1 is-at ac:86:74:55:b0:20, length 46
10:42:02.507185 IP 192.168.254.71 > 192.168.254.1: ICMP echo request, id 52792, seq 1, length 64
10:42:02.507205 IP 192.168.254.71 > 192.168.254.1: ICMP echo request, id 52792, seq 2, length 64
10:42:02.507212 IP 192.168.254.71 > 192.168.254.1: ICMP echo request, id 52792, seq 3, length 64
10:42:02.507219 IP 192.168.254.71 > 192.168.254.1: ICMP echo request, id 52792, seq 4, length 64
10:42:02.507225 IP 192.168.254.71 > 192.168.254.1: ICMP echo request, id 52792, seq 5, length 64
10:42:02.507232 IP 192.168.254.71 > 192.168.254.1: ICMP echo request, id 52792, seq 6, length 64
10:42:02.515373 IP 192.168.254.1 > 192.168.254.71: ICMP echo reply, id 52792, seq 1, length 64
10:42:02.521399 IP 192.168.254.1 > 192.168.254.71: ICMP echo reply, id 52792, seq 2, length 64
10:42:02.521612 IP 192.168.254.1 > 192.168.254.71: ICMP echo reply, id 52792, seq 3, length 64
10:42:02.521941 IP 192.168.254.1 > 192.168.254.71: ICMP echo reply, id 52792, seq 4, length 64
10:42:02.522419 IP 192.168.254.1 > 192.168.254.71: ICMP echo reply, id 52792, seq 5, length 64
10:42:02.523085 IP 192.168.254.1 > 192.168.254.71: ICMP echo reply, id 52792, seq 6, length 64
You can see the first ARP who-has went out very quickly after UP, but
was never responded to. Nearly a second later the kernel retries and
gets a response. Only then do the ping packets go out. If an ARP entry
is manually added prior to UP (after the cache is cleared) it is seen
that the first ping is never responded to, so its not only an issue with
ARP but with data packets in general.
As mentioned prior, the wireless interface was also monitored to verify
the ping/ARP packet made it OTA which was observed to be true.
Signed-off-by: James Prestwood <prestwoj@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
fcdb44d08a