7.0.x: backport treating unknown requirements as unsatisfied with opt-out flag - v2 #12226
Conversation
For example, "requires: foo bar" is an unknown requirement, however its not tracked, nor an error as it follows the syntax. Instead, record these unknown keywords, and fail the requirements check if any are present. A future version of Suricata may have new requires keywords, for example a check for keywords. Ticket: OISF#7418 (cherry picked from commit 820a3e5)
The new behavior in 8, and backported is to treat unknown requirements as unsatisfied requirements. For 7.0.8, add a configuration option, "ignore-unknown-requirements" to completely ignore unknown requirements, effectively treating them as available. Ticket: OISF#7434
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main-7.0.x #12226 +/- ##
==============================================
- Coverage 83.18% 83.17% -0.01%
==============================================
Files 922 922
Lines 260858 260880 +22
==============================================
Hits 216982 216982
- Misses 43876 43898 +22
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
|
WARNING:
Pipeline 23679 |
| as unsatisfied requirements, causing the rule to not be loaded. See | ||
| :ref:`keyword_requires`. To opt out of this change and to ignore | ||
| uknown requirements, effectively treating them as satified the | ||
| ``ignore-unknown-requirements`` configuration option can be used. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are you thinking about making this a 7.0.x only option? If so, we should probably state that this is not behavior that will continue in 8
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we want to keep this in 8 and beyond, I'd like it to live under detect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally we wouldn't have it at all. So will add a note that it won't be around in 8.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we want to keep this in 8 and beyond, I'd like it to live under
detect.
Also note the reasoning for the location: #12226 (comment)
| @@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ | |||
| #include "detect-engine.h" | |||
| #include "rust.h" | |||
|
|
|||
| /* Set to true if unknown requirements should be ingored. In Suricata | |||
| * 8, unknown requirements are treated as unsatisfied requirements. */ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah I think this answers my question. So do we need a warning/doc reference about this being 7 only behavior?
|
Continued at #12239. |
Replaces #12224
Ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7434
SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2162