Skip to content

Conversation

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/635

Describe changes:

  • New command line option --list-rule-protos to show tcp-pkt and other

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

Force-pushed rust bindings update

To use an array, instead of hard-coded values.
Opens the path to list the rule protocols

Ticket: 635
To list the protocols we can use a in a rule header

Ticket: 635
@catenacyber catenacyber force-pushed the detect-list-rule-proto-635-v1 branch from 617d5d7 to b479345 Compare November 27, 2025 16:21
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 27, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.45455% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.18%. Comparing base (459e259) to head (b479345).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14380      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.19%   84.18%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1012     1012              
  Lines      261796   261793       -3     
==========================================
- Hits       220414   220380      -34     
- Misses      41382    41413      +31     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 63.27% <29.54%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
livemode 18.77% <34.09%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
pcap 44.64% <36.36%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 64.95% <38.63%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
unittests 59.21% <95.45%> (-0.03%) ⬇️

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline = 28552


struct {
const char *name;
uint8_t proto;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we make this an int and use -1 as not set? Technically 0 is a valid ip protocol number https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok as long as one of the rule-proto keywords does not set it ;-)

@victorjulien victorjulien added this to the 9.0 milestone Dec 2, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants