From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] suricata: 'Downdate' to 5.0.5 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:33:31 +0100 Message-ID: <347769F2-CB29-474C-988C-0AE3216E3A54@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: <20201212091435.20982-1-matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5499432604909042193==" List-Id: --===============5499432604909042193== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2= =80=99t provide a solution, yet. I suppose it is okay if we burn through a little bit more of CPU as long as t= he system is secure. The overhead seems to be small enough for me to not caus= e 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 = wrote: >=20 > Triggered by https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2020-December/0= 08868.html >=20 > Workaround for https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D12548 >=20 > Downgrading to 'suricata 5.0.5' bypasses Bug #12548 for now, > but its only a temporary workaround... >=20 > Signed-off-by: Matthias Fischer > --- > lfs/suricata | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/lfs/suricata b/lfs/suricata > index 2871d8e7b..c5dc46af4 100644 > --- a/lfs/suricata > +++ b/lfs/suricata > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ >=20 > include Config >=20 > -VER =3D 6.0.0 > +VER =3D 5.0.5 >=20 > THISAPP =3D suricata-$(VER) > DL_FILE =3D $(THISAPP).tar.gz > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ objects =3D $(DL_FILE) >=20 > $(DL_FILE) =3D $(DL_FROM)/$(DL_FILE) >=20 > -$(DL_FILE)_MD5 =3D bbddcf2f209930206ef21977d40120d2 > +$(DL_FILE)_MD5 =3D fe039cc4571eb56828874ddc0b71dc51 >=20 > install : $(TARGET) >=20 > --=20 > 2.18.0 >=20 --===============5499432604909042193==--