-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Applayer plugin 5053 v3.13 #12118
Applayer plugin 5053 v3.13 #12118
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.
WARNING:
Pipeline 23315 |
edition = "2021" | ||
|
||
[lib] | ||
crate-type = ["cdylib"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is correct for using the C ABI? @chifflier?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, during the talk I thought dylib
was used.
cdylib
is the correct thing to do to have a stable API (in C), so it's all good :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note: you might want to use something like bindgen to generate bindings automatically. Also, it may be good to use a structure with a api_version
field (as first field) for the registration, so that updating the protocol will be easier in the future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@chifflier this may interest you #12062
Rebased in #12127 |
Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5053
Describe changes:
#12116 with clean history and in-tree plugin testing (without logging enabled)