Closed
Conversation
instead of a global variable. For easier initialization with dynamic number of protocols
for expectation_proto Ticket: 5053
for alproto_names Ticket: 5053
Ticket: 5053
so that we can use safely EXCEPTION_POLICY_MAX*sizeof(x)
Ticket: 5053 delay after initialization so that StringToAppProto works
Ticket: 5053
As too many cases are found when splitting tcp payload
As it is also used for HTTP/1 Remove it only for TCP and keep it for UDP.
Because some alprotos will remain static and defined as a constant, such as ALPROTO_UNKNOWN=0, or ALPROTO_FAILED. The regular already used protocols keep for now their static identifier such as ALPROTO_SNMP, but this could be made more dynamic in a later commit. ALPROTO_FAILED was used in comparison and these needed to change to use either ALPROTO_MAX or use standard function AppProtoIsValid
Ticket: 5053 The names are now dynamically registered at runtime. The AppProto alproto enum identifiers are still static for now. This is the final step before app-layer plugins.
Ticket: 5053
There was an implicit limit of 32 app-layer protocols used by probing parsers through a mask, meaning that Suricata should not support more than 32 app-layer protocols in total. This limit is relaxed to each flow not being able to run more than 32 probing parsers, meaning that for each source and destination port combination, the sum of registered probing parsers should not exceed 32, even if there are more than 32 in total.
catenacyber
requested review from
a team,
jasonish and
victorjulien
as code owners
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #12163 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 49.81% 47.51% -2.31%
==========================================
Files 909 911 +2
Lines 257904 258327 +423
==========================================
- Hits 128467 122734 -5733
- Misses 129437 135593 +6156
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
|
WARNING:
Pipeline 23589 |
This was referenced Dec 5, 2024
Contributor
Author
So, I did
After these are merged, there will remain to do one PR with plugin support |
Contributor
Author
|
Rebased in #12256 |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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/5053
Describe changes:
Let me know if I should split this PR
#12127 with latest commit adding versioning for plugin suricata compatibility as suggested by Pierre Chillier