Suricata InLine with igb NICs

stephenw10

I have not seen anything.
Generally speaking submitting additional bug reports for which a report is already open is, at best, frowned upon! Better to add to existing bug reports. Even better to add to them with actual useful data.
FreeBSD devs will rightly want to see any issues replicated in FreeBSD directly. And they will want to see that done in a current version. I would suggest that is 12 right now though maybe 11-stable might be acceptable.

Demonstrating the bug exists in current FreeBSD and giving detailed steps to replicate that is the best way to attract developer attention.

Steve

newUser2pfSense

stephenw10 and bmeeks...I appreciate all of your help. Unfortunately, I only have one computer like my pfSense instance, and of course it's being used for pfSense, so I wouldn't be able to replicate the issue to provide more information to the developers. I guess I had hoped that others who might see this post would have additional input to the FreeBSD bug report. Thanks.

stephenw10

You can only do what you can do. There may well be others who can do more. Inline Suricata with igb is not that uncommon.

Steve

boobletins

I'm in a position to test this (and I've also been having issues with igb and em drivers + netmap).

I'm using a Jetway with I219-LM and I211-AT chips and it looks like the Supermicro is i350.

Would testing this with the lower level chips be useful, or do we expect that the i350s would work where the i2XX wouldn't?

If it would be useful, I can certainly put FreeBSD 12 and Suricata on a machine with i2XX...

newUser2pfSense

Hi boobletins...thank you for the response. That's very kind of you to offer to test this. I would only know the i350 as that's the card that I'm using. I wish I could offer more. My apologies.

boobletins

@newuser2pfsense

Can you ssh and give me the result of ifconfig on the interface in question?

I just discovered after lots of annoyance that IPv6 Transmit Checksums were not disabled via the GUI when they appeared to be. Manually configuring it off solved this issue for me (at least I can now complete speedtests over the last hour or so with Suricata in IPS mode).

You might want to double check that

TXCSUM_IPV6

does not appear in your

ifconfig igb0

output (or the interface in question).

If it does, you might try:

ifconfig igb0 -rxcsum -rxcsum6 -txcsum -txcsum6 -lro -tso -vlanhwtso

then put Suricata back into IPS mode, restart Suricata, but don't reboot pfSense. See if your connection is stable. If you reboot pfSense, txcsum6 may reappear. I don't know where to permanently disable it.

bmeeks

@boobletins said in Suricata InLine with igb NICs:

@newuser2pfsense

Can you ssh and give me the result of ifconfig on the interface in question?

I just discovered after lots of annoyance that IPv6 Transmit Checksums were not disabled via the GUI when they appeared to be. Manually configuring it off solved this issue for me (at least I can now complete speedtests over the last hour or so with Suricata in IPS mode).

You might want to double check that
TXCSUM_IPV6
does not appear in your
ifconfig igb0
output (or the interface in question).

If it does, you might try:
ifconfig igb0 -rxcsum -rxcsum6 -txcsum -txcsum6 -lro -tso -vlanhwtso
then put Suricata back into IPS mode, restart Suricata, but don't reboot pfSense. See if your connection is stable. If you reboot pfSense, txcsum6 may reappear. I don't know where to permanently disable it.

This issue is affecting more than just IPS mode in Suricata. It is impacting IPv6 connectivity for some folks on their WAN. I know there is a pfSense Redmine issue about it. The problem is within FreeBSD itself, I think. It's not a bug within Suricata itself. Suricata is a victim in this case. I think I've seen some posts about this in the IPv6 sub-forum here. I know I've seen a Redmine bug on it, too. I just had not connected directly to the IPS-Netmap problem. Good detective work!

newUser2pfSense

boobletins...Yes, TXCSUM_IPV6 is in the output of the ifconfig on my WAN interface; it's actually on all 4 interfaces on my SuperMicro ethernet adapter. If we knew where to disable it, I'm wondering if we could put that information in the loader.conf.local file? Then if we restart pfSense, I'm wondering if it would be disabled then? I don't know, just a thought.

bmeeks...I don't have IPv6 enabled anywhere on my pfSense instance, at least I don't believe.

stephenw10

@boobletins said in Suricata InLine with igb NICs:

Manually configuring it off solved this issue for me

It solved the netmap errors? Did you see any other errors that lead you to try this?

Are you actually using IPv6?

Steve

newUser2pfSense

For me, I have IPv6 blocked on my WAN as a rule in the Firewall > Rules; it's practically at the top. However, I noticed a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in my System Logs > Firewall > Normal View tab. As well, I currently have Suricata running in Legacy Mode and have a ton of IPv6 addresses of SURICATA zero length padN option in the Alerts tab and all IPv6 addresses in the Blocks tab. Maybe I'm completely wrong but if I have IPv6 blocked on the WAN, should IPv6 addresses be showing up at all in the logs?

bmeeks

@newuser2pfsense said in Suricata InLine with igb NICs:

For me, I have IPv6 blocked on my WAN as a rule in the Firewall > Rules; it's practically at the top. However, I noticed a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in my System Logs > Firewall > Normal View tab. As well, I currently have Suricata running in Legacy Mode and have a ton of IPv6 addresses of SURICATA zero length padN option in the Alerts tab and all IPv6 addresses in the Blocks tab. Maybe I'm completely wrong but if I have IPv6 blocked on the WAN, should IPv6 addresses be showing up at all in the logs?

You will likely have IPv6 Link-Local addresses created on your interfaces by default. I have them on all of my local firewall interfaces, including my WAN even though my ISP does not provide any type of IPv6 connectivity.

A typical Windows domain will spew a lot of IPv6 stuff by default. In fact, IPv6 is a preferred communications route for Windows domain traffic unless it is explicitly disabled. Most of that will be via link-local addresses.

boobletins

@stephenw10

I suppose "solved" is a strong word. What I should have said is that before I couldn't complete a single speedtest and now I can complete an arbitrary number without netmap errors. Suricata also lasted through the night in IPS mode on my LAN interface (igb) without crashing which is extremely rare. I won't know if it's truly solved until it lasts through more like a week or month.

I can reliably crash the interface by enabling TXCSUM_IPV6 and running a speedtest.

I'm not a pfSense expert -- so when you ask if I'm using IPv6, all I know to say is that I have "Allow IPv6" enabled in the UI, and I see a smattering of IPv6 IPs in both Suricata Alerts and states (the majority are IPv4).

Here is what I settled on for my boot.conf.local after referring these links:
https://calomel.org/freebsd_network_tuning.html
https://suricata.readthedocs.io/en/suricata-4.0.5/performance/packet-capture.html#rss

kern.ipc.nmbclusters="1048576"
hw.pci.enable_msix=1

hw.em.msix=1
hw.em.smart_pwr_down=0
hw.em.num_queues=1   # https://suricata.readthedocs.io/en/suricata-4.0.5/performance/packet-capture.html#rss

# below this line is all from: https://calomel.org/freebsd_network_tuning.html
if_igb_load="YES"
hw.igb.enable_msix="1"
hw.igb.enable_aim="1"
hw.igb.rx_process_limit="100" #default
hw.igb.num_queues="3"  # (default 0 , queues equal the number of CPU real cores if queues available on card)
hw.igb.max_interrupt_rate="16000" #double default
coretemp_load="YES"
hw.intr_storm_threshold="9000" #default

if_em_load="YES"
hw.em.enable_msix="1"
hw.em.msix=1

autoboot_delay="-1"
net.isr.maxthreads="-1"
net.isr.bindthreads="1"  # (default 0, runs randomly on any one cpu core)

#Larger buffers and TCP Large Window Extensions
net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=1
net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_inc=65536     # (default 16384)
net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_inc=65536     # (default 8192)
net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536       # (default 32768)
net.inet.tcp.mssdflt=1460   # Option 1 (default 536)
net.tcp.minmss=536  # (default 216)

#syn protection
net.inet.tcp.syncache.rexmtlimit=0  # (default 3)

boobletins

@stephenw10 said in Suricata InLine with igb NICs:

Did you see any other errors that lead you to try this?

No -- I didn't see any specific IPv6 errors. I just started investigating the interface settings using information from here: https://calomel.org/freebsd_network_tuning.html and noticed that ifconfig showed TXCSUM_IPV6 enabled when I thought it was supposed to be disabled. Disabling it seems to have created a more stable interface with netmap enabled.

I would receive 2 types of netmap errors previously "bad pkt" errors and "netmap_transmit" errors eg

[2925] netmap_transmit           igb0 full hwcur 203 hwtail 204 qlen 1022 len 1514 m 0xfffff8000df20500
[1071] netmap_grab_packets       bad pkt at 419 len 2167

I've tried using -txcsum6 the same on my WAN (em0) interface, but I still get bad packets there. I don't know if that has to do with the lack of msix support on that interface or my configuration settings. Still trying to figure that one out.

Here's my dmesg output for em0 and igb0 in case that helps.

em0: <Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 7.6.1-k> mem 0xdf100000-0xdf11ffff irq 16 at device 31.6 on pci0
em0: Using an MSI interrupt
em0: Ethernet address: 00:30:18:ce:19:cf
em0: netmap queues/slots: TX 1/1024, RX 1/1024
ses0 at ahciem0 bus 0 scbus6 target 0 lun 0
em0: link state changed to UP
em0: promiscuous mode enabled

igb0: <Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection, Version - 2.5.3-k> port 0xe000-0xe01f mem 0xdf000000-0xdf01ffff,0xdf020000-0xdf023fff irq 17 at device 0.0 on pci1
igb0: Using MSIX interrupts with 3 vectors
igb0: Ethernet address: 00:30:18:ce:19:d0
igb0: Bound queue 0 to cpu 0
igb0: Bound queue 1 to cpu 1
igb0: netmap queues/slots: TX 2/1024, RX 2/1024
igb0: link state changed to UP
igb0: permanently promiscuous mode enabled

boobletins

@newuser2pfsense said in Suricata InLine with igb NICs:

I'm wondering if we could put that information in the loader.conf.local file?

It looks like the right place to put this is described here:

https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/development/executing-commands-at-boot-time.html

I tried to offer an example but Akismet thinks its spam. Let's see if this post will go through?

newUser2pfSense

boobletins...I read through the link you provided but I'm not sure myself on what the syntax should be to add to the loader.conf.local file. I was looking to use the loader.conf.local file for an interim fix until the FreeBSD developers are able to solve the netmap issue(s) in a future release.

Grimson

Look closely at https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/packages/package-list.html there is a package that might help with running a command on system startup.

newUser2pfSense

Grimson...You're right. I didn't see it. Shellcmd - The shellcmd utility is used to manage commands on system startup. Now we just need the syntax to use.

stephenw10

Shellcmd just runs commands like they would be at the command line. The only difference is you often need the complete path to the command as it runs as a different user. But you could use:
ifconfig igb0 -rxcsum -rxcsum6 -txcsum -txcsum6 -lro -tso -vlanhwtso

That should run OK.

Steve

NollipfSense

I noticed that with the release of pfSenxe 2.4.4, there was a dramatic increase of Netmap errors (https://forum.netgate.com/topic/136191/netmap-alerts-gotten-worst-with-2-4-4). I also have an igb network card.

The major headache is this issue turns into finger pointing...pfSense says its FreeBSD 11.2, Netmap says its Suricata, FreeBSD says its the network card, and Suricata says its Netmap.

My feeling is since we're ultimately using pfSense, it's pfSense responsibility to ensure that we achieve synergy of a robust firewall with all parts working seamlessly. Inline mode is an important part of firewall intrusion detection prevention system in that it provides a more efficient screening.

boobletins

It looks like in that thread you seemed to have solved the issue, is that the case? (I ask because I'm interested in knowing if I've solved this issue for myself as well).

If you're game, could you give me the output from the following shell commands (case sensitive):

ifconfig igb0 | grep CSUM
sysctl -a | grep igb
sysctl -a | grep netmap

How many CPU cores do you have?
Is hyperthreading enabled?
How much RAM do you have?
Are you running Suricata on more than 1 interface? (If so, what's the second interface? Also: run the shell commands above on that interface)

I've gone a few days now without netmap errors on either my em0 or igb0 interface with Suricata in inline IPS mode and 2 speedtests / hour. I'm becoming more confident that I have a working configuration, but if we can eliminate them from yours as well that'd be some welcome evidence...