Skip to content

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

@catenacyber catenacyber commented Oct 13, 2025

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7674

Describe changes:

  • on top of Vxlan tunnel 7717 v2.1 #14018
  • introduces configurable tunnel_id to distinguish same-looking (same 5-tuple) flows encapsulated in different tunnels
  • adds a config option to "skip" the packets that are not part of a tunnel on interfaces receiving tunneled traffic
  • handle xdp bypass of these encapsulated flows
  • use this new tunnel_id as a multi-tenant selector

Provide values to any of the below to override the defaults.

SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2688

#13839 rebased, with SV test live
Adds a commit features: add EBPF as a feature for this SV test

Instead of directly accessing the field

Will allow PacketTunnelType to hold the precise tunnel type like
DECODE_TUNNEL_ERSPANII with a modification of PacketIsTunnelChild
catenacyber and others added 5 commits October 13, 2025 12:02
So that we know for a packet which precise type of tunnel it
is (like erspan2).
ebpf program does not handle 3 layers of vlan
Ticket: 7717

Allows for instance to process/log ARP packets over VXLAN.

That means we need to decode the ethernet layer above vxlan
instead of skipping it as part of the vxlan, even if the vxlan
decoder still checks the ethernet layer to avoid FPs.
catenacyber and others added 7 commits October 13, 2025 12:23
Ticket: 7674

To distinguish flows with the same 5-tuple but coming from different
tunnel sources.
Ticket: 7674

On interfaces meant to receive only tunneled traffic
for SV to run tests based on the presence of this feature
so as to run ebpf live tests
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 13, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 56.07477% with 141 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 83.63%. Comparing base (16d124c) to head (408c6d6).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14017      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.87%   83.63%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files        1011     1012       +1     
  Lines      275671   278158    +2487     
==========================================
+ Hits       231207   232633    +1426     
- Misses      44464    45525    +1061     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 63.32% <29.59%> (-0.19%) ⬇️
livemode 19.07% <11.52%> (-0.38%) ⬇️
pcap 44.96% <30.52%> (+0.20%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 65.14% <54.76%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
unittests 58.62% <18.61%> (-0.53%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@suricata-qa
Copy link

WARNING:

field baseline test %
SURI_TLPR1_stats_chk
.uptime 654 634 96.94%

Pipeline = 27971

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

See SV questions about the CI failures

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants