Bug 823316 - unable to simulate drops with tc / netem
Summary: unable to simulate drops with tc / netem
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: iproute
Version: 17
Hardware: i686
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Petr Šabata
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-05-20 21:21 UTC by Sebastiaan Jansen
Modified: 2012-06-21 08:02 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-20 14:05:35 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Sebastiaan Jansen 2012-05-20 21:21:40 UTC
Description of problem:
I did an reinstall of system from fedora16 > fedora17-beta2 (fully updated) to test if the newly added 'correlated loss Generator' scenario's in netem are working, after the fedora upgrade I get the message 'RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory' when I apply:

$ tc qdisc add dev p2p1 root netem delay 100ms
OR
$ tc qdisc change dev p2p1 root handle 1: prio
OR (the changed loss commands since iproute2-3.x.x)
$ tc qdisc add dev p2p1 root netem loss random 10%

currently the interface is set default:
$ tc qdisc show dev p2p1
qdisc pfifo_fast 0: root refcnt 2 bands 3 priomap  1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ofcourse I'm root, and tried to switchoff selinux.
In fedora16 the (unchanged) commands worked.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

iproute-3.3.0-2.fc17.i686

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. tc qdisc add dev p2p1 root netem loss random 10%
2. tc qdisc add dev p2p1 root netem delay 100ms
3.
  
Actual results:
RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory

Expected results:
applied netem setting

Additional info:

Comment 1 Joseph D. Wagner 2012-06-13 08:47:13 UTC
Please add keyword: Regression

This appears to be affecting all traffic control.  This exact script worked on my Fedora 16 machine, but it no longer works on the same machine in Fedora 17.  It now returns the same error message on the first line:

RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory

## UPSTREAM TRAFFIC SHAPPING
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev p6p1 root handle 1: htb default 10
/sbin/tc class add dev p6p1 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 2mbit burst 2k
/sbin/tc class add dev p6p1 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 2mbit burst 2k
/sbin/tc class add dev p6p1 parent 1:1 classid 1:20 htb rate 1536kbit burst 2k
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev p6p1 parent 1:10 handle 10: prio
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev p6p1 parent 1:20 handle 20: sfq perturb 30
# ICMP
/sbin/tc filter add dev p6p1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 u32 match ip protocol 1 0xff flowid 1:10
# Interactive Ports
/sbin/tc filter add dev p6p1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 2 u32 match ip dport 0 0xfc00 flowid 1:10
# Bulk Ports (Catch-All)
/sbin/tc filter add dev p6p1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 3 u32 match ip dport 0 0x0000 flowid 1:20

Comment 2 paolo borelli 2012-06-20 09:35:27 UTC
I have a similar problem... the "RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory" message is surely not very helpful :)

That said I "fixed" it by installing kernel-modules-extras

Comment 3 Bill Shirley 2012-06-20 13:37:28 UTC
Thank you!!

This fixed it for me also.  I was having a problem with Shorewall's TC_ENABLED=Internal in shorewall.conf.

Comment 4 Petr Šabata 2012-06-20 14:05:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> I have a similar problem... the "RTNETLINK answers: No such file or
> directory" message is surely not very helpful :)

That's a kernel response; there's not much to do about it.

Apparently the module was moved to the extras package; this happens sometimes for various reasons.  It's good to know how to fix the issue, thanks for sharing.

Comment 5 paolo borelli 2012-06-20 15:10:08 UTC
can maybe make iproute depend on that? or maybe the issue should be brought to the attention of the kernel packagers

Comment 6 Petr Šabata 2012-06-21 08:02:18 UTC
It's optional functionality, hence the 'extras' in the name.  Hard-requiring it (there's no other way in RPM) is a no-go.

What goes in the extras package is decided by the kernel people, indeed.  If you believe this is a module that should be part of every Fedora installation, file a bug with kernel.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.