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

Dev/nom7 nfs v0.1 #6589

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Dev/nom7 nfs v0.1 #6589

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

chifflier
Copy link
Contributor

Make sure these boxes are signed before submitting your Pull Request -- thank you.

Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4165

Describe changes:

  • This is a followup from Dev/nom7 v0.3 #6572 (should we create a "master ticket" to link all individual PRs?)
  • Parsers updated in this PR: NFS

Notes:

The `count` combinator preallocates a number of bytes. Since the value
is untrusted, this can result in an Out Of Memory allocation.
Use a maximum value, large enough to cover all current implementations.
@chifflier
Copy link
Contributor Author

Additional note: there is one tricky part in rust/src/nfs/nfs4.rs:L33-L39: I had to keep one parser using the old nom version, because it is used by SMB, and changing it would have required to patch many other locations in the code.
It will be updated when upgrading SMB.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 9, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #6589 (1c5f7b7) into master (fac3311) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6589   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.07%   77.07%           
=======================================
  Files         613      613           
  Lines      186207   186207           
=======================================
+ Hits       143513   143525   +12     
+ Misses      42694    42682   -12     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 52.97% <ø> (+0.03%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 52.07% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unittests 63.08% <ø> (ø)

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

@victorjulien victorjulien mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2021
@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

Merged in #6629, thanks!

@chifflier chifflier mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2021
3 tasks
jasonish added a commit to jasonish/suricata that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2023
In our conf.py we reference some ReadTheDocs stylesheets that appear to
be old and break formatting of some items like bulletted lists.

Bug: OISF#6589
jasonish added a commit to jasonish/suricata that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2023
In our conf.py we reference some ReadTheDocs stylesheets that appear to
be old and break formatting of some items like bulletted lists.

Bug: OISF#6589
victorjulien pushed a commit to victorjulien/suricata that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2023
In our conf.py we reference some ReadTheDocs stylesheets that appear to
be old and break formatting of some items like bulletted lists.

Bug: OISF#6589
catenacyber pushed a commit to catenacyber/suricata that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2024
In our conf.py we reference some ReadTheDocs stylesheets that appear to
be old and break formatting of some items like bulletted lists.

Bug: OISF#6589
(cherry picked from commit cc0adaa)
victorjulien pushed a commit to victorjulien/suricata that referenced this pull request Jan 18, 2024
In our conf.py we reference some ReadTheDocs stylesheets that appear to
be old and break formatting of some items like bulletted lists.

Bug: OISF#6589
(cherry picked from commit cc0adaa)
jlucovsky pushed a commit to jlucovsky/suricata that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2024
In our conf.py we reference some ReadTheDocs stylesheets that appear to
be old and break formatting of some items like bulletted lists.

Bug: OISF#6589
(cherry picked from commit cc0adaa)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
2 participants