Hi,

Thank you for submitting this patch.

I am not sure if I want to merge this, yet.

I will consider this when we move closer to a release, but upstream didn’t provide a solution, yet.

I suppose it is okay if we burn through a little bit more of CPU as long as the system is secure. The overhead seems to be small enough for me to not cause any significant impact on throughput or latency.

Is this an acceptable benchmark for you?

Best,
-Michael

> On 12 Dec 2020, at 10:14, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Triggered by https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2020-December/008868.html
> 
> Workaround for https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12548
> 
> Downgrading to 'suricata 5.0.5' bypasses Bug #12548 for now,
> but its only a temporary workaround...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org>
> ---
> lfs/suricata | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lfs/suricata b/lfs/suricata
> index 2871d8e7b..c5dc46af4 100644
> --- a/lfs/suricata
> +++ b/lfs/suricata
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
> 
> include Config
> 
> -VER        = 6.0.0
> +VER        = 5.0.5
> 
> THISAPP    = suricata-$(VER)
> DL_FILE    = $(THISAPP).tar.gz
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ objects = $(DL_FILE)
> 
> $(DL_FILE) = $(DL_FROM)/$(DL_FILE)
> 
> -$(DL_FILE)_MD5 = bbddcf2f209930206ef21977d40120d2
> +$(DL_FILE)_MD5 = fe039cc4571eb56828874ddc0b71dc51
> 
> install : $(TARGET)
> 
> -- 
> 2.18.0
>