On 14.12.2020 10:33, Michael Tremer wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
Thank you for submitting this patch.
I am not sure if I want to merge this, yet.
Yep.
Looking at the changelogs I would prefer 6.0.1, but I just wanted to have an alternative ready in case it was needed.
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?
For me: yes. No problem. ;-)
Best, Matthias
Best, -Michael
On 12 Dec 2020, at 10:14, Matthias Fischer matthias.fischer@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@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