Re: git: b2efd602aea8 - main - unbound: Vendor import 1.24.0
- Reply: Lexi Winter : "Re: git: b2efd602aea8 - main - unbound: Vendor import 1.24.0"
- Reply: Gleb Smirnoff : "Re: git: b2efd602aea8 - main - unbound: Vendor import 1.24.0"
- In reply to: Cy Schubert : "Re: git: b2efd602aea8 - main - unbound: Vendor import 1.24.0"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:44:42 UTC
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 8:00 PM Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: > > In message <20251007221221.22BCC29E@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert writes: > > In message <CAPwQLcep1-Pt4P1QHiJpnZrMXXicG5Bc_tpxa6MtjVZT+vpJmg@mail.gmail.c > > om> > > , Jose Luis Duran writes: > > > Hello Cy, > > > > > > According to the changelog: > > > > > > "The default value increase for so-sndbuf is to mitigate a cross-layer > > > issue where the UDP socket send buffers are exhausted waiting for > > > ARP/NDP resolution. Thanks to Reflyable for the report. > > > > > > To help the server start more easily, the setsockopt for sndbuf buffer > > > size prints a warning instead of a failure to start the server if it > > > can not set the buffer size." > > > > > > This means so-sndbuf is now 4m. Which triggers a warning, detailed in > > > upstream commit 713b5db5 ("- Fix to print warning for when so-sndbuf > > > setsockopt is not granted."). > > > > > > I wonder if we should revert back to using "so-sndbuf: 0" as the > > > default for FreeBSD? Or is there a better solution/workaround? > > > > There are in fact two commits. > > > > 1ef7b4a24 adjusted so-sndbuf to default to 4m. > > > > 03772d10f changed the default from to 1m. > > > > I assume you're suggesting reverting both upstream commits for FreeBSD? > > Looking at the commit that started unbound down this path we see this in > their commit log before bumping the default to 4m: > > > - Change default for so-sndbuf to 1m, to mitigate a cross-layer > issue where the UDP socket send buffers are exhausted waiting > for ARP/NDP resolution. Thanks to Reflyable for the report. > > I use local_unbound on one of my machines here. It has 8 GB RAM. I don't > see any warning messages WRT the socket option not accepted. The first > question that comes to mind, to try to understand your environment, how > much RAM does this machine have and of that how much is allocated to the > kernel? Here is the warning on a fresh VM with 8GB: # sysctl hw.physmem hw.physmem: 8551202816 # service local_unbound onestart Starting local_unbound. [1759883902] local-unbound[3237:0] warning: setsockopt(..., SO_SNDBUF, ...) was not granted: No buffer space available [1759883902] local-unbound[3237:0] warning: so-sndbuf 4194304 was not granted. Got 9216. To fix: start with root permissions(linux) or sysctl bigger net.core.wmem_max(linux) or kern.ipc.maxsockbuf(bsd) values. or set so-sndbuf: 0 (use system value). [1759883902] local-unbound[3237:0] warning: setsockopt(..., SO_SNDBUF, ...) was not granted: No buffer space available [1759883902] local-unbound[3237:0] warning: so-sndbuf 4194304 was not granted. Got 9216. To fix: start with root permissions(linux) or sysctl bigger net.core.wmem_max(linux) or kern.ipc.maxsockbuf(bsd) values. or set so-sndbuf: 0 (use system value). Waiting for nameserver to start... good If we configure it with "so-sndbuf: 0" the warning goes away. But, nevermind if I'm the only one seeing these warnings. It was just a basic local_unbound test. Regards, > > -- > Cheers, > Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> > FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: https://FreeBSD.org > NTP: <cy@nwtime.org> Web: https://nwtime.org > > e**(i*pi)+1=0 > >