:)

:)

[becker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 40 bytes --]

 I don't  bite, weah!
 
password: 77845

[-- Attachment #2: MoreInfo.zip --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 429453 bytes --]

:)

[majordomo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 63 bytes --]

Looking  forward  for a response :P
 
archive password:  35344

[-- Attachment #2: TextDocument.zip --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 370826 bytes --]

!

[FBI]

Get  back  now  for  your  money  that  you  lost   to  scammers  back  now  reply  back!

$

[Xli]

My name is Sgt. Benny Brooker. I am in the Engineering military unit  
here in Ba'qubah in Iraq; we have some amount of funds that we want to  
move out of the country. REPLY VIA THIS EMAIL: (sgt.benny@w.cn)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sent via webmail for Chemistry & Biochemistry @ Florida State University
  https://webmail.chem.fsu.edu




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

:

[JOEL SULLINS]

-- 
Avaliable: 3% interest rate Loan Offer + you having the chance to choose your duration. Are you interested?

??

[jjorge]

is it safe to discuss with you in this email?

??

[seyed.jamaly]

is it safe to discuss with you in this email?

?

[Robert]

Did you get my previous mail? When can i call you?

?

[Robert]

> Did you receive my previous mail ? When and what time can i call you?

👑

[sunil saraff]

Presumo che non abbia ancora sentito parlare di questo? http://w.aLorayne804.xyz/index







Con immense gratitudine,sunil saraff

!

[Paolo Abeni]

On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 21:54 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > I did not look at that before your suggestion. Thanks for pointing out.
> > 
> > I think the problem is specific to UDP: when processing the outer UDP
> > header that is potentially eligible for both NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 and
> > gro_receive aggregation and that is the root cause of the problem
> > addressed here.
> 
> Can you elaborate on the exact problem? The commit mentions "inner
> protocol corruption, as no overaly network parameters is taken in
> account at aggregation time."
> 
> My understanding is that these are udp gro aggregated GSO_UDP_L4
> packets forwarded to a udp tunnel device. They are not encapsulated
> yet. Which overlay network parameters are not, but should have been,
> taken account at aggregation time?

The scenario is as follow: 

* a NIC has NETIF_F_GRO_UDP_FWD or NETIF_F_GRO_FRAGLIST enabled
* an UDP tunnel is configured/enabled in the system
* the above NIC receives some UDP-tunneled packets, targeting the
mentioned tunnel
* the packets go through gro_receive and they reache
'udp_gro_receive()' while processing the outer UDP header.

without this patch, udp_gro_receive_segment() will kick in and the
outer UDP header will be aggregated according to SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST
or SKB_GSO_UDP_L4, even if this is really e.g. a vxlan packet.

Different vxlan ids will be ignored/aggregated to the same GSO packet.
Inner headers will be ignored, too, so that e.g. TCP over vxlan push
packets will be held in the GRO engine till the next flush, etc.

Please let me know if the above is more clear.

Thanks!

Paolo

Re: !

[Willem de Bruijn]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:51 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 21:54 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > I did not look at that before your suggestion. Thanks for pointing out.
> > >
> > > I think the problem is specific to UDP: when processing the outer UDP
> > > header that is potentially eligible for both NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 and
> > > gro_receive aggregation and that is the root cause of the problem
> > > addressed here.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on the exact problem? The commit mentions "inner
> > protocol corruption, as no overaly network parameters is taken in
> > account at aggregation time."
> >
> > My understanding is that these are udp gro aggregated GSO_UDP_L4
> > packets forwarded to a udp tunnel device. They are not encapsulated
> > yet. Which overlay network parameters are not, but should have been,
> > taken account at aggregation time?
>
> The scenario is as follow:
>
> * a NIC has NETIF_F_GRO_UDP_FWD or NETIF_F_GRO_FRAGLIST enabled
> * an UDP tunnel is configured/enabled in the system
> * the above NIC receives some UDP-tunneled packets, targeting the
> mentioned tunnel
> * the packets go through gro_receive and they reache
> 'udp_gro_receive()' while processing the outer UDP header.
>
> without this patch, udp_gro_receive_segment() will kick in and the
> outer UDP header will be aggregated according to SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST
> or SKB_GSO_UDP_L4, even if this is really e.g. a vxlan packet.
>
> Different vxlan ids will be ignored/aggregated to the same GSO packet.
> Inner headers will be ignored, too, so that e.g. TCP over vxlan push
> packets will be held in the GRO engine till the next flush, etc.
>
> Please let me know if the above is more clear.

Yes, thanks a lot! That's very concrete.

When processing the outer UDP tunnel header in the gro completion
path, it is incorrectly identified as an inner UDP transport layer due
to NAPI_GRO_CB(skb) identifying that such a layer is present
(is_flist).

The issue is that the UDP GRO layer distinguishes between tunnel and
transport layer too late, in udp_gro_complete, while an offending
assumption of that UDP == transport layer was already made in the
callers udp4_gro_complete and udp6_gro_complete.