nfs: enforce unique ILLEGAL opname when failed to match operation #11503
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Since this is a community submitted pull request, a Jenkins build has not been kicked off automatically. Can an Elastic organization member please verify the contents of this patch and then kick off a build manually? |
|
If accepted, please backport to 6.7 and 6.6 branches. |
|
Do you wait for any action on my side? |
andrewkroh
changed the title
|
jenkins, test this |
andrewkroh
approved these changes
Apr 9, 2019
When we fail to map packet to a valid NFS4 operation, then opname ILLEGAL with opcode it used, like `ILLEGAL (4294967295)`. While this points to a bug in packet detection, such 'random' illegal opnames create multiple new operations that confuse kibana. Do not include opcode into opname ILLEGAL. Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan <[email protected]>
adriansr
pushed a commit
to adriansr/beats
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2019
…astic#11503) When we fail to map packet to a valid NFS4 operation, then opname ILLEGAL with opcode it used, like `ILLEGAL (4294967295)`. While this points to a bug in packet detection, such 'random' illegal opnames create multiple new operations that confuse kibana. Do not include opcode into opname ILLEGAL. Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit f457715)
|
@kofemann unfortunately at this time we are only backporting serious bug fixes and this fix doesn't qualify. Expect this to be released in 7.2.0. Sorry we took so long to review. In the meantime, you can avoid having to build a custom package for a previous version by just defining a processor like this: |
|
@adriansr Thanks! |
adriansr
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 8, 2019
…1503) (#12025) When we fail to map packet to a valid NFS4 operation, then opname ILLEGAL with opcode it used, like `ILLEGAL (4294967295)`. While this points to a bug in packet detection, such 'random' illegal opnames create multiple new operations that confuse kibana. Do not include opcode into opname ILLEGAL. Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit f457715)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When we fail to map packet to a valid NFS4 operation, then opname
ILLEGAL with opcode it used, like
ILLEGAL (4294967295). Whilethis points to a bug in packet detection, such 'random' illegal
opnames create multiple new operations that confuse kibana.
Do not include opcode into opname ILLEGAL.
Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan [email protected]