Skip to content

Applayer plugin 5053 v3.15.1#12234

Closed
catenacyber wants to merge 9 commits intoOISF:masterfrom
catenacyber:applayer-plugin-5053-v3.15.1
Closed

Applayer plugin 5053 v3.15.1#12234
catenacyber wants to merge 9 commits intoOISF:masterfrom
catenacyber:applayer-plugin-5053-v3.15.1

Conversation

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

@catenacyber catenacyber commented Dec 5, 2024

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5053

Describe changes:

  • get ready to use dynamic number of app-layer protos (also work with static constant) in all places
  • preventive fix of macro with parenthesis cc @jufajardini

Let me know if I should split this PR

#12163 first commits, just making alprotos number dynamic, and not yet adding plugins support

@catenacyber
protodetect: make expectation_proto part of AppLayerProtoDetectCtx
e74b618 
instead of a global variable.

For easier initialization with dynamic number of protocols
@catenacyber
protodetect: use dynamic number of app-layer protos
1a94b56 
for expectation_proto

Ticket: 5053
@catenacyber
protodetect: use dynamic number of app-layer protos
7a41461 
for alproto_names

Ticket: 5053
@catenacyber
frames: use dynamic number of app-layer protos
b35914a 
Ticket: 5053
@catenacyber
util: parenthesis for macro
bc43186 
so that we can use safely EXCEPTION_POLICY_MAX*sizeof(x)
@catenacyber
app-layer/stats: use dynamic number of app-layer protos
02b81aa 
Ticket: 5053
@catenacyber
fuzz: use dynamic number of app-layer protos
da21ae1 
Ticket: 5053

delay after initialization so that StringToAppProto works
@catenacyber
app-layer/parser: use dynamic number of app-layer protos
8a6203e 
Ticket: 5053
@catenacyber
profiling: use dynamic number of app-layer protos
c53a564 
Ticket: 5053
@catenacyber catenacyber mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2024
Closed
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.14583% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.07%. Comparing base (09ba69c) to head (c53a564).
Report is 46 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #12234      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.19%   83.07%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         912      912              
  Lines      257166   268555   +11389     
==========================================
+ Hits       213938   223101    +9163     
- Misses      43228    45454    +2226
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 62.01% <81.15%> (+1.00%) ⬆️
livemode 19.51% <71.20%> (+0.10%) ⬆️
pcap 46.34% <84.81%> (+1.94%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 64.47% <91.09%> (+1.69%) ⬆️
unittests 58.28% <70.83%> (-0.91%) ⬇️

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

@suricata-qa
Copy link

suricata-qa commented Dec 6, 2024

Information:

ERROR: QA failed on SURI_TLPR1_alerts_cmp.

field baseline test %
SURI_TLPR1_stats_chk
.app_layer.flow.dcerpc_tcp 40 42 105.0%

Pipeline 23707

@catenacyber catenacyber mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2024
Closed
@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

victorjulien commented Dec 10, 2024

replaced by #12256

@catenacyber catenacyber reopened this Dec 18, 2024
@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

catenacyber commented Dec 18, 2024

Did you mean you do not want the PR split ?
If so, do you also want #12233 closed as taken in #12256 ?

@suricata-qa
Copy link

suricata-qa commented Dec 18, 2024

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 24007

@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

victorjulien commented Dec 19, 2024

Confused, why is there a v15 open as well as a v16?

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

catenacyber commented Dec 19, 2024

Confused, why is there a v15 open as well as a v16?

TL;DR
This PR and #12307 are the current ones

v15.1 was a part of v16

I could have made a v16.1 which is v15.1 rebased, but not wasting resources

As QA showed something interesting cf #12307 I am closing #12256

Let me know if

@catenacyber catenacyber mentioned this pull request Jan 7, 2025
Closed
@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

catenacyber commented Jan 7, 2025

Rebased in #12352

@catenacyber catenacyber closed this Jan 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@victorjulien victorjulien Awaiting requested review from victorjulien

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@catenacyber @suricata-qa @victorjulien