Skip to content

mqtt: Improve handling of multiple PDU parsing#10305

Closed
jlucovsky wants to merge 1 commit intoOISF:masterfrom
jlucovsky:6592/5
Closed

mqtt: Improve handling of multiple PDU parsing#10305
jlucovsky wants to merge 1 commit intoOISF:masterfrom
jlucovsky:6592/5

Conversation

@jlucovsky
Copy link
Contributor

Continuation of #10279

Issue: 6592

Link to redmine ticket: 6592

Describe changes:

  • Parse PDU instead of entire stream

Updates:

  • Remove debug prints added during fix

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

To use a pull request use a branch name like pr/N where N is the
pull request number.

Alternatively, SV_BRANCH may also be a link to an
OISF/suricata-verify pull-request.

SV_REPO=
SV_BRANCH=pr/1609
SU_REPO=
SU_BRANCH=
LIBHTP_REPO=
LIBHTP_BRANCH=

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (244a35d) 73.31% compared to head (5c683c7) 82.33%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10305       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   73.31%   82.33%    +9.02%     
===========================================
  Files         895      978       +83     
  Lines      148215   272029   +123814     
===========================================
+ Hits       108666   223981   +115315     
- Misses      39549    48048     +8499     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 63.58% <100.00%> (+0.10%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 61.49% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unittests 62.84% <0.00%> (?)

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

Copy link
Contributor

@catenacyber catenacyber left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code looks good to me.

Commit message should mention "frames" ;-)

@jlucovsky
Copy link
Contributor Author

Continued in #10309

@jlucovsky jlucovsky closed this Feb 4, 2024
@jlucovsky jlucovsky deleted the 6592/5 branch April 24, 2024 12:22
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