-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 919
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
fix(userspace/falco): when counting -M
timeout, do not account for async events
#3505
Conversation
/milestone 0.41.0 |
/hold |
… diff is > 0. Signed-off-by: Federico Di Pierro <nierro92@gmail.com>
4349307
to
d0f18bd
Compare
/unhold |
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.
good catch!
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.
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Andreagit97, FedeDP The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area engine
What this PR does / why we need it:
When using
-M
flag with eg: a plugin (like the container plugin) that generates asyncevents during the startup phase, could set firstduration_start
to a value that would be lower than first event retrieved from scap.Bug spotted by the container plugin CI and the Falco testing framework: https://github.com/FedeDP/container_plugin/actions/runs/13546519679?pr=21
Basically, with the container plugin loaded and
-M
passed, Falco would leave immediately instead of waiting 5seconds (in nodriver mode) if there were containers running on the system.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: