Napatech bypass v1.09 #4478
Closed
Napatech bypass v1.09 #4478
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Napatech hardware bypass support enables Suricata to utilize capabilities of Napatech SmartNICs to selectively bypass flow-based traffic.
Napatech hardware bypass support enables Suricata to utilize capabilities of Napatech SmartNICs to selectively bypass flow-based traffic.
|
This PR failed the Debian 9 test build with the error: "sip-response-line: Sub test #1: FAIL : expected 3 matches; got 1 for filter {'count': 3, 'match': {'event_type': 'alert'}}" This appears to be unrelated to any of the changes that I made. Can you explain what is causing this? Is this something that I did? If not, will I have to submit another PR for this? |
We've seen this in the past and it's unlikely your change is causing it. I've restarted the PR checks. |
|
I see it passed the second time through. Thanks. |
You're welcome |
victorjulien
added a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2021
Previously the flow manager would share evicted flows with the workers while keeping the flows mutex locked. This reduced the number of unlock/ lock cycles while there was guaranteed to be no contention. This turns out to be undefined behavior. A lock is supposed to be locked and unlocked from the same thread. It appears that FreeBSD is stricter on this than Linux. This patch addresses the issue by unlocking before handing a flow off to another thread, and locking again from the new thread. Issue was reported and largely analyzed by Bill Meeks. Bug: OISF#4478
victorjulien
added a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 23, 2021
Previously the flow manager would share evicted flows with the workers while keeping the flows mutex locked. This reduced the number of unlock/ lock cycles while there was guaranteed to be no contention. This turns out to be undefined behavior. A lock is supposed to be locked and unlocked from the same thread. It appears that FreeBSD is stricter on this than Linux. This patch addresses the issue by unlocking before handing a flow off to another thread, and locking again from the new thread. Issue was reported and largely analyzed by Bill Meeks. Bug: OISF#4478
inashivb
pushed a commit
to inashivb/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 1, 2021
Previously the flow manager would share evicted flows with the workers while keeping the flows mutex locked. This reduced the number of unlock/ lock cycles while there was guaranteed to be no contention. This turns out to be undefined behavior. A lock is supposed to be locked and unlocked from the same thread. It appears that FreeBSD is stricter on this than Linux. This patch addresses the issue by unlocking before handing a flow off to another thread, and locking again from the new thread. Issue was reported and largely analyzed by Bill Meeks. Bug: OISF#4478 (cherry picked from commit 9551cd0)
victorjulien
added a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 6, 2021
Previously the flow manager would share evicted flows with the workers while keeping the flows mutex locked. This reduced the number of unlock/ lock cycles while there was guaranteed to be no contention. This turns out to be undefined behavior. A lock is supposed to be locked and unlocked from the same thread. It appears that FreeBSD is stricter on this than Linux. This patch addresses the issue by unlocking before handing a flow off to another thread, and locking again from the new thread. Issue was reported and largely analyzed by Bill Meeks. Bug: OISF#4478 (cherry picked from commit 9551cd0)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Make sure these boxes are signed before submitting your Pull Request -- thank you.
Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/2818
Describe changes:
This PR Addresses issues identified in the review of PR 4472
This reflects changes since PR [Napatech bypass v1.07]#4472)