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

dns: improved handling of corrupt additionals #11785

Closed

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7228

Describe changes:

  • dns: improved handling of corrupt additionals

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

SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2032

#11752 with better rust style

Waiting for QA pcaps

Ticket: 7228

That means log the rest of queries and answers, even if the
final field additionals is corrupt.
Set an event in this case.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 16, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.60%. Comparing base (d3eb656) to head (153abc4).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11785      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.53%   82.60%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         919      919              
  Lines      248979   249005      +26     
==========================================
+ Hits       205506   205680     +174     
+ Misses      43473    43325     -148     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 60.46% <100.00%> (+0.13%) ⬆️
livemode 18.83% <0.00%> (+0.12%) ⬆️
pcap 44.21% <86.20%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 61.90% <86.20%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
unittests 58.99% <79.31%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

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

@suricata-qa
Copy link

WARNING:

field baseline test %
SURI_TLPR1_stats_chk
.app_layer.error.dns_tcp.parser 30 3 10.0%

Pipeline 22671

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

Next in #11794

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