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

app-layer events: consistently use uint8_t/u8 as the event id #12010

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

jasonish
Copy link
Member

Builds on #12009 to be consistent about the data type used for event IDs. #12009 shows us how important this is especially when something passes an ffi boundary.

Rust was using i8 as the return type, while C uses int. As of Rust
1.82, the return value is turned to garbage over the FFI boundary.

Ticket: OISF#7338
Note: For event IDs in the enum that are larger than a uint8_t, -1
will be returned instead of -4. -4 has special meaning during
signature parsin that means requirements were not met. -4 has no
special handling prior to requirements, or the meaning has been lost.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 22, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.22%. Comparing base (30806ce) to head (fe88be3).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #12010   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.22%   83.22%           
=======================================
  Files         910      910           
  Lines      258136   258141    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits       214831   214847   +16     
+ Misses      43305    43294   -11     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 61.44% <78.57%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
livemode 19.38% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
pcap 44.45% <25.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
suricata-verify 62.75% <67.85%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unittests 59.28% <35.71%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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 23164

@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

Do we have a sense of having u8 is big enough?

@jasonish
Copy link
Member Author

Do we have a sense of having u8 is big enough?

Appears we get into the 30s for a few app-layers, but I think that's as high as we get.

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.

3 participants