Skip to content
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

Detect negated content absent buffer 2224 v12.11 #11070

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6575

Describe changes:

  • detect: unify multi-buffer code

#11067 with setting of buffer->flags = DETECT_CI_FLAGS_SINGLE; for all keywords

This is required for #10334

Ticket: 6575

Multi buffers keywords now use a single registration function
DetectAppLayerMultiRegister with a GetBuffer argument.

This GetBuffer function pointer is similar to the ones used by
single-buffer keyword, except that it takes an additional
parameter which is the index of the buffer to get.
Under the hood, an anonymous union between these 2 functions
pointers types is used.

In the end, this deduplicates code, especially the calls to
DetectEngineContentInspection
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 14, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.57009% with 48 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.55%. Comparing base (cb56752) to head (849fceb).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11070      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.63%   78.55%   -5.08%     
==========================================
  Files         922      922              
  Lines      250321   249736     -585     
==========================================
- Hits       209349   196190   -13159     
- Misses      40972    53546   +12574     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus ?
livemode 18.47% <25.23%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 62.66% <77.57%> (-0.10%) ⬇️
unittests 62.36% <57.94%> (+0.09%) ⬆️

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

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 20627

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased in #11117

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
2 participants