From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB024C433ED for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A8F6145E for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236930AbhEGKh1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2021 06:37:27 -0400 Received: from mailout4.samsung.com ([203.254.224.34]:44829 "EHLO mailout4.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236915AbhEGKhV (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2021 06:37:21 -0400 Received: from epcas2p3.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.41.55]) by mailout4.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20210507103619epoutp04549ca6c8e557122a9fbb48b0fcaea1fc~8wnZGO9Xf2316823168epoutp04C for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:19 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailout4.samsung.com 20210507103619epoutp04549ca6c8e557122a9fbb48b0fcaea1fc~8wnZGO9Xf2316823168epoutp04C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samsung.com; s=mail20170921; t=1620383779; bh=+KFwL554FiUYsQuDiwrbpamm8pEVQzumGw8EbUUwLus=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:References:From; b=NlMq+jV80XchRUV1LZA5hK+9j7Se2VJtKeW1l6E4MZWodjXKPQJXB8K0DLmSRGz5F upLToYKwlA2zjOQs8Mbrsj0k0Ij0CDClOpSnBc4PXXX6shtKSuP8DTPSNTRFYw0G3w yDtwAYCSJHRoz5jejQtPbo6GTsOziX3lJyyxra6M= Received: from epsnrtp1.localdomain (unknown [182.195.42.162]) by epcas2p2.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20210507103618epcas2p2af58c0c639c48450bf8d47b35bb6de1a~8wnYAIjxX2373523735epcas2p26; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from epsmges2p3.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.40.183]) by epsnrtp1.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Fc6LS0RBgz4x9Pp; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from epcas2p2.samsung.com ( [182.195.41.54]) by epsmges2p3.samsung.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id D1.0E.09433.F1815906; Fri, 7 May 2021 19:36:15 +0900 (KST) Received: from epsmtrp1.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.40.13]) by epcas2p4.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTPA id 20210507103615epcas2p420f76362ca61282a6ac26ee7d42fb347~8wnVpLACs0064300643epcas2p4m; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from epsmgms1p2.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.42.42]) by epsmtrp1.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20210507103615epsmtrp111794de89e8f0967055fc952da34ef79~8wnVn_76V0947109471epsmtrp1t; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:15 +0000 (GMT) X-AuditID: b6c32a47-f61ff700000024d9-7f-6095181f07dc Received: from epsmtip2.samsung.com ( [182.195.34.31]) by epsmgms1p2.samsung.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id D9.7C.08163.F1815906; Fri, 7 May 2021 19:36:15 +0900 (KST) Received: from KORDO035731 (unknown [12.36.185.47]) by epsmtip2.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTPA id 20210507103615epsmtip2dedeaa9f15a3819b0f451d230ad54195~8wnVU0YfC1119311193epsmtip2i; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:36:15 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dongseok Yi" To: "'Yunsheng Lin'" , "'Willem de Bruijn'" Cc: "'Daniel Borkmann'" , "'bpf'" , "'Alexei Starovoitov'" , "'Andrii Nakryiko'" , "'Martin KaFai Lau'" , "'Song Liu'" , "'Yonghong Song'" , "'John Fastabend'" , "'KP Singh'" , "'David S. Miller'" , "'Jakub Kicinski'" , "'Network Development'" , "'linux-kernel'" In-Reply-To: <5824b2ab-46a2-a70c-0ac9-8c5eb0a9665a@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH bpf] bpf: check for data_len before upgrading mss when 6 to 4 Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 19:36:15 +0900 Message-ID: <008101d7432c$ce733e00$6b59ba00$@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQKypHYW3xad5/j2XvChPebQmKG2owG+YoocAqFpyMsBZavlXQIxNaIYAiru3ucBq8RF2QKY6vTDAm6kVlUBadK04AMaqQ3GARiLayQCOMjohahbuIog Content-Language: ko X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrJJsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWy7bCmma68xNQEg4f3rC2+/57NbPHl5212 i89HjrNZLF74jdlizvkWFoumHSuYLF58eMJo8XxfL5PFhW19rBaXd81hs2h4y2VxbIGYxc/D Z5gtFv/cAFS1ZAajA7/HlpU3mTwmNr9j99g56y67R8uRt6weXTcuMXtsWtXJ5vF5k1wAe1SO TUZqYkpqkUJqXnJ+SmZeuq2Sd3C8c7ypmYGhrqGlhbmSQl5ibqqtkotPgK5bZg7Q2UoKZYk5 pUChgMTiYiV9O5ui/NKSVIWM/OISW6XUgpScAkPDAr3ixNzi0rx0veT8XCtDAwMjU6DKhJyM b0cfMxY0hlbs6JjA1sD41bGLkZNDQsBE4vKDe2xdjFwcQgI7GCU23L0D5XwCch5eYIVwPjNK LNh9nBWmpX3RPqjELkaJ9y/nsEM4LxglGt5MYASpYhPQkngzqx2sQ0QgXWJuy2FGkCJmgXks EleXtYAlOAXsJD6/2s8CYgsLBEs8ndTEBGKzCKhIHH17EGwQr4ClxNHj65khbEGJkzOfgNUz C8hLbH87hxniJAWJn0+XgZ0kItDEKLF41yRWiCIRidmdbcwgCQmBBxwSj84uZYHocJF4e286 I4QtLPHq+BZ2CFtK4mV/G5DNAWTXS7R2x0D09jBKXNn3BKrXWGLWs3ZGkBpmAU2J9bv0IcqV JY7cgrqNT6Lj8F+oKbwSHW1CEKaSxMQv8RAzJCRenJzMMoFRaRaSx2YheWwWkvtnIaxawMiy ilEstaA4Nz212KjAGDm2NzGC07SW+w7GGW8/6B1iZOJgPMQowcGsJMJ7etHkBCHelMTKqtSi /Pii0pzU4kOMpsCgnsgsJZqcD8wUeSXxhqZGZmYGlqYWpmZGFkrivD9T6xKEBNITS1KzU1ML Uotg+pg4OKUamJZ2L2vm/t7uMJlB79wLQ7lL7/3qv62Ydz356/oovetBa7Z3Cb5yWi74PUpk sVCr+TeWTRwa+ydsa/XymmCt0f0i+79XbqtOWSBvwGKHZQGXBeJXPV3t+ZS7Y/vdaV4ra184 sx9mtVMpOLHn9tRjvAt39mkyMbB/LF2lyMBlvEOS6ULULxajuav02W/m3XPLrwhz6dh9+suL 2xO33NjheGu6mhFnd8KHawVLdLRkprF+SF+8dp9pPI/pR6Fb5QLmPStbLe5nWLmGe86v6WX0 N3Pi4HDdkB/19htjTWXbTM3yoHl93F9/vdmaIbN2n65YiIP7si3zo313fg1Ndat1PSddUXxO QkozNGdf694gJZbijERDLeai4kQA4NBxLFwEAAA= X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrCIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWy7bCSvK68xNQEgxvzBC2+/57NbPHl5212 i89HjrNZLF74jdlizvkWFoumHSuYLF58eMJo8XxfL5PFhW19rBaXd81hs2h4y2VxbIGYxc/D Z5gtFv/cAFS1ZAajA7/HlpU3mTwmNr9j99g56y67R8uRt6weXTcuMXtsWtXJ5vF5k1wAexSX TUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxrejjxkLGkMrdnRMYGtg/OrYxcjJISFgItG+aB9rFyMXh5DADkaJl5uf sXUxcgAlJCR2bXaFqBGWuN9yhBXEFhJ4xiix8nE5iM0moCXxZlY7WFxEIF3iyt+n7CBzmAVW sEhcWH+RHWLoL1aJFc3vWUCqOAXsJD6/2g9mCwsESvT/u8UIYrMIqEgcfXsQzOYVsJQ4enw9 M4QtKHFy5hOwemYBbYneh62MELa8xPa3c5ghrlOQ+Pl0GdgHIgJNjBKLd01ihSgSkZjd2cY8 gVF4FpJZs5DMmoVk1iwkLQsYWVYxSqYWFOem5xYbFhjlpZbrFSfmFpfmpesl5+duYgRHrJbW DsY9qz7oHWJk4mA8xCjBwawkwnt60eQEId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4rwXuk7GCwmk J5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGpjys4QXpKzb/3PJ+0OxYQm197pWfao33VpsFHQ78YadZMTugOye FecNlcXZXtrdWhpbMPfbqzS+x7G5QVYSS1QZHFYvib8gUSLXLuy/7bzkdrZHskxLap7oZ/W1 86bwsh9c3hwTJWxZtcE8f2Zr0ItNTCdfhh5sTeQ68IMtjOvqulj+rUabZx8/+Otq1mkv9scx HH2yWx3W3SueLu559n3Xh2e56o7deqtWGDUI+X86yzEzStsxrLnTg6/55x1mFw65m2Lh84Ly FtTe0Wk/nTgrj8VrHuOb+Gqf1INOiwxeGemzNdzWUjj2b3Lud/XDnte1tWJEjHbENV9jnbW/ +MUmmSV+Nv2NzgwPVDZUK7EUZyQaajEXFScCAO7RlS9HAwAA X-CMS-MailID: 20210507103615epcas2p420f76362ca61282a6ac26ee7d42fb347 X-Msg-Generator: CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Sendblock-Type: AUTO_CONFIDENTIAL CMS-TYPE: 102P DLP-Filter: Pass X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CMS-RootMailID: 20210429102143epcas2p4c8747c09a9de28f003c20389c050394a References: <1619690903-1138-1-git-send-email-dseok.yi@samsung.com> <8c2ea41a-3fc5-d560-16e5-bf706949d857@iogearbox.net> <02bf01d74211$0ff4aed0$2fde0c70$@samsung.com> <02c801d7421f$65287a90$2f796fb0$@samsung.com> <001801d742db$68ab8060$3a028120$@samsung.com> <436dbc62-451b-9b29-178d-9da28f47ef24@huawei.com> <007001d7431a$96281960$c2784c20$@samsung.com> <5824b2ab-46a2-a70c-0ac9-8c5eb0a9665a@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 05:11:20PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > On 2021/5/7 16:25, Dongseok Yi wrote: > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:53:45PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:45 PM Yunsheng Lin wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2021/5/7 9:25, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > >>>>>>> head_skb's data_len is the sum of skb_gro_len for each skb of the frags. > >>>>>>> data_len could be 8 if server sent a small size packet and it is GROed > >>>>>>> to head_skb. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please let me know if I am missing something. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is my understanding of the data path. This is a forwarding path > >>>>>> for TCP traffic. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> GRO is enabled and will coalesce multiple segments into a single large > >>>>>> packet. In bad cases, the coalesced packet payload is > MSS, but < MSS > >>>>>> + 20. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Somewhere between GRO and GSO you have a BPF program that converts the > >>>>>> IPv6 address to IPv4. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your understanding is right. The data path is GRO -> BPF 6 to 4 -> > >>>>> GSO. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is no concept of head_skb at the time of this BPF program. It is > >>>>>> a single SKB, with an skb linear part and multiple data items in the > >>>>>> frags (no frag_list). > >>>>> > >>>>> Sorry for the confusion. head_skb what I mentioned was a skb linear > >>>>> part. I'm considering a single SKB with frags too. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When entering the GSO stack, this single skb now has a payload length > >>>>>> < MSS. So it would just make a valid TCP packet on its own? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> skb_gro_len is only relevant inside the GRO stack. It internally casts > >>>>>> the skb->cb[] to NAPI_GRO_CB. This field is a scratch area that may be > >>>>>> reused for other purposes later by other layers of the datapath. It is > >>>>>> not safe to read this inside bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4. > >>>>> > >>>>> The condition what I made uses skb->data_len not skb_gro_len. Does > >>>>> skb->data_len have a different meaning on each layer? As I know, > >>>>> data_len indicates the amount of frags or frag_list. skb->data_len > >>>>> should be > 20 in the sample case because the payload size of the skb > >>>>> linear part is the same with mss. > >>>> > >>>> Ah, got it. > >>>> > >>>> data_len is the length of the skb minus the length in the skb linear > >>>> section (as seen in skb_headlen). > >>>> > >>>> So this gso skb consists of two segments, the first one entirely > >>>> linear, the payload of the second is in skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0]. > >>>> > >>>> It is not guaranteed that gso skbs built from two individual skbs end > >>>> up looking like that. Only protocol headers in the linear segment and > >>>> the payload of both in frags is common. > >>>> > >>>>> We can modify netif_needs_gso as another option to hit > >>>>> skb_needs_linearize in validate_xmit_skb. But I think we should compare > >>>>> skb->gso_size and skb->data_len too to check if mss exceed a payload > >>>>> size. > >>>> > >>>> The rest of the stack does not build such gso packets with payload len > >>>> < mss, so we should not have to add workarounds in the gso hot path > >>>> for this. > >>>> > >>>> Also no need to linearize this skb. I think that if the bpf program > >>>> would just clear the gso type, the packet would be sent correctly. > >>>> Unless I'm missing something. > >>> > >>> Does the checksum/len field in ip and tcp/udp header need adjusting > >>> before clearing gso type as the packet has became bigger? > >> > >> gro takes care of this. see for instance inet_gro_complete for updates > >> to the ip header. > > > > I think clearing the gso type will get an error at tcp4_gso_segment > > because netif_needs_gso returns true in validate_xmit_skb. > > So the bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4() is called after validate_xmit_skb() and > before tcp4_gso_segment()? > If Yes, clearing the gso type here does not seem to help. The order what I checked is bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4() -> validate_xmit_skb() -> tcp4_gso_segment(). > > > > >> > >>> Also, instead of testing skb->data_len, may test the skb->len? > >>> > >>> skb->len - (mac header + ip/ipv6 header + udp/tcp header) > mss + len_diff > >> > >> Yes. Essentially doing the same calculation as the gso code that is > >> causing the packet to be dropped. > > > > BPF program is usually out of control. Can we take a general approach? > > The below 2 cases has no issue when mss upgrading. > > 1) skb->data_len > mss + 20 > > 2) skb->data_len < mss && skb->data_len > 20 > > The corner case is when > > 3) skb->data_len > mss && skb->data_len < mss + 20 > > As my understanding: > > Usually skb_headlen(skb) >= (mac header + ip/ipv6 header + udp/tcp header), > other than that, there is no other guarantee as long as: > skb->len = skb_headlen(skb) + skb->data_len > > So the cases should be: > 1. skb->len - (mac header + ip/ipv6 header + udp/tcp header) > mss + len_diff > 2. skb->len - (mac header + ip/ipv6 header + udp/tcp header) <= mss + len_diff > > The corner case is case 2. I agree. In addition, skbs which hits skb_increase_gso_size in bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4 are all IPv6 + TCP by (skb_is_gso(skb) && !skb_is_gso_tcp(skb)) condition. So (mac header + ip/ipv6 header + udp/tcp header) can be (mac header + ipv6 header + tcp header). But I thick Willem de Bruijn would not want to check such network payloads in the BPF step. > > > > > But to cover #3 case, we should check the condition Yunsheng Lin said. > > What if we do mss upgrading for both #1 and #2 cases only? > > > > + unsigned short off_len = skb->data_len > shinfo->gso_size ? > > + shinfo->gso_size : 0; > > [...] > > /* Due to IPv4 header, MSS can be upgraded. */ > > - skb_increase_gso_size(shinfo, len_diff); > > + if (skb->data_len - off_len > len_diff) > > + skb_increase_gso_size(shinfo, len_diff); > > > >> > >>>> > >>>> But I don't mean to argue that it should do that in production. > >>>> Instead, not playing mss games would solve this and stay close to the > >>>> original datapath if no bpf program had been present. Including > >>>> maintaining the GSO invariant of sending out the same chain of packets > >>>> as received (bar the IPv6 to IPv4 change). > >>>> > >>>> This could be achieved by adding support for the flag > >>>> BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_FIXED_GSO in the flags field of bpf_skb_change_proto. > >>>> And similar to bpf_skb_net_shrink: > >>>> > >>>> /* Due to header shrink, MSS can be upgraded. */ > >>>> if (!(flags & BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_FIXED_GSO)) > >>>> skb_increase_gso_size(shinfo, len_diff); > >>>> > >>>> The other case, from IPv4 to IPv6 is more difficult to address, as not > >>>> reducing the MSS will result in packets exceeding MTU. That calls for > >>>> workarounds like MSS clamping. Anyway, that is out of scope here. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> One simple solution if this packet no longer needs to be segmented > >>>>>>>> might be to reset the gso_type completely. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am not sure gso_type can be cleared even when GSO is needed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In general, I would advocate using BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_FIXED_GSO. When > >>>>>>>> converting from IPv6 to IPv4, fixed gso will end up building packets > >>>>>>>> that are slightly below the MTU. That opportunity cost is negligible > >>>>>>>> (especially with TSO). Unfortunately, I see that that flag is > >>>>>>>> available for bpf_skb_adjust_room but not for bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> would increse the gso_size to 1392. tcp_gso_segment will get an error > >>>>>>>>>>> with 1380 <= 1392. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Check for the size of GROed payload if it is really bigger than target > >>>>>>>>>>> mss when increase mss. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 6578171a7ff0 (bpf: add bpf_skb_change_proto helper) > >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dongseok Yi > >>>>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>>>> net/core/filter.c | 4 +++- > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > >>>>>>>>>>> index 9323d34..3f79e3c 100644 > >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/net/core/filter.c > >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3308,7 +3308,9 @@ static int bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4(struct sk_buff *skb) > >>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> /* Due to IPv4 header, MSS can be upgraded. */ > >>>>>>>>>>> - skb_increase_gso_size(shinfo, len_diff); > >>>>>>>>>>> + if (skb->data_len > len_diff) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Could you elaborate some more on what this has to do with data_len specifically > >>>>>>>>>> here? I'm not sure I follow exactly your above commit description. Are you saying > >>>>>>>>>> that you're hitting in tcp_gso_segment(): > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>> mss = skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size; > >>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(skb->len <= mss)) > >>>>>>>>>> goto out; > >>>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, right > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please provide more context on the bug, thanks! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> tcp_gso_segment(): > >>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>> __skb_pull(skb, thlen); > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> mss = skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size; > >>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(skb->len <= mss)) > >>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> skb->len will have total GROed TCP payload size after __skb_pull. > >>>>>>>>> skb->len <= mss will not be happened in a normal GROed situation. But > >>>>>>>>> bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4 would upgrade MSS by increasing gso_size, it can > >>>>>>>>> hit an error condition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We should ensure the following condition. > >>>>>>>>> total GROed TCP payload > the original mss + (IPv6 size - IPv4 size) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Due to > >>>>>>>>> total GROed TCP payload = the original mss + skb->data_len > >>>>>>>>> IPv6 size - IPv4 size = len_diff > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Finally, we can get the condition. > >>>>>>>>> skb->data_len > len_diff > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> + skb_increase_gso_size(shinfo, len_diff); > >>>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>>> /* Header must be checked, and gso_segs recomputed. */ > >>>>>>>>>>> shinfo->gso_type |= SKB_GSO_DODGY; > >>>>>>>>>>> shinfo->gso_segs = 0; > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> . > >>>> > >>> > > > > > > . > >