smb: do not use tree id to match request and response

[catenacyber]

Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5161

Describe changes:

• smb2: do not use tree id to match request and response for access to ssn2vecoffset_map

I wonder if this should be completed for ssn2vec_map as well

suricata-verify-pr: 1014
OISF/suricata-verify#1014

[suricata-qa]

WARNING:

field	baseline	test	%
	TREX_GENERIC_stats_chk
.capture.kernel_drops	0	17972	-
.flow.end.tcp_state.syn_sent	0	19	-
.flow.end.tcp_state.syn_recv	0	1	-
.flow.end.tcp_state.time_wait	0	2	-
.flow.end.tcp_state.last_ack	0	1	-
.flow.end.tcp_state.close_wait	0	3	-
.tcp.segment_from_pool	15728353	16618402	105.66%
.app_layer.error.smtp.gap	0	3	-
.app_layer.error.dcerpc_tcp.parser	0	1	-

Pipeline 10815

[catenacyber]

So, CI failure was because there is a wrong result enforced by suricata-verify...
@jasonish what is the way to deal with this ?
Try to merge suricata and suricata-verify PR at the same time ?
Or first remove the faulty check in suricata-verify, then merge suricata PR, and last put the good check in suricata-verify

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8202 (d948f21) into master (bf1c185) will increase coverage by 0.10%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8202      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.61%   81.71%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         965      965              
  Lines      278461   278461              
==========================================
+ Hits       227264   227558     +294     
+ Misses      51197    50903     -294     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus	63.55% <100.00%> (+0.23%)	⬆️
suricata-verify	59.42% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	63.47% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

[jasonish]

So, CI failure was because there is a wrong result enforced by suricata-verify... @jasonish what is the way to deal with this ? Try to merge suricata and suricata-verify PR at the same time ? Or first remove the faulty check in suricata-verify, then merge suricata PR, and last put the good check in suricata-verify

Its pretty normal that we merge suricata first, then merge up suricata-verify after to fix the failing test.

[victorjulien]

So, CI failure was because there is a wrong result enforced by suricata-verify... @jasonish what is the way to deal with this ? Try to merge suricata and suricata-verify PR at the same time ? Or first remove the faulty check in suricata-verify, then merge suricata PR, and last put the good check in suricata-verify

Its pretty normal that we merge suricata first, then merge up suricata-verify after to fix the failing test.

I sync such merges.

[victorjulien]

Merged in #8209, thanks!