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

fuzz/detect: forbid rule with any pcre on stream #12344

Closed

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4858

Describe changes:

  • fuzz/detect: forbid rule with any pcre on stream

Because such rules cause timeouts on oss-fuzz and block other findings

Completes commit 378f678

to avoid fuzzing blocks on timeouts with known bad rules

Completes commit 378f678
after oss-fuzz found another timeout

Ticket: 4858
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 7, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.23%. Comparing base (def22fa) to head (11111df).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #12344   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.23%   83.23%           
=======================================
  Files         912      912           
  Lines      257647   257640    -7     
=======================================
- Hits       214450   214445    -5     
+ Misses      43197    43195    -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 61.19% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
livemode 19.39% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
pcap 44.48% <ø> (+0.08%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 62.85% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
unittests 59.18% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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

@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

Is the problem related to pcre's recursion features? Could a lower recursion limit help as well?

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is the problem related to pcre's recursion features? Could a lower recursion limit help as well?

Looks like it cf #12350

Which solution do you prefer ?

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 24085

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

#12350 is the approved alternative

@catenacyber catenacyber closed this Jan 8, 2025
@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

Yeah wanted to try that first, as it will leave more functionality available for fuzz testing.

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