Dataset set postmatch 5576 v10 #11962
Draft
+270
−62
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
And new bug found in https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7326 |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #11962 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.76% 77.89% -4.88%
==========================================
Files 910 910
Lines 249014 249103 +89
==========================================
- Hits 206105 194046 -12059
- Misses 42909 55057 +12148
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
|
Information: QA ran without warnings. Pipeline 23107 |
Ticket: 7326
Will be useful for dataset, when it needs to find a transaction buffer again.
The set operation of dataset keyword was done even if signature did not fully match, which is not the expected behavior. We want dataset to behave like flowbits for instance. This patch changes the behavior of the dataset keyword to do a match and a post match for the set operation. The postmatch retrieves the data, using the list identifier associated to the buffer for this signature. This avoids to store the buffer(s), when we do not have a dedicated storage (per signature and per tx) that can own and clean arbitrary buffers over multiple packets, in the case the transaction spans over multiple packets with different tx progresses for instance. If detection runs on one packet, the InspectionBuffer are cached and fast to get. The most expensive case if for multi buffers, where we need to run detection again, to see which occurences match all payload keywords and should be added in the dataset. Ticket: OISF#5576
catenacyber
force-pushed
the
dataset-set-postmatch-5576-v10
branch
from
c9baea3
to
c8e68d4
Compare
|
I had forgotten the no-random in SV |
|
Information: QA ran without warnings. Pipeline 23119 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5576
Describe changes:
SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2093
#11834 with avoid rerunning transforms and detection and new SV tests
DRAFT : this shows the POC to have feedback before doing a clean git history.
Feedback is excepted on the design :