Reject mismatched sources rules changes #3383
Merged
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
|
This PR may bring feature or behavior changes in the Falco engine and may require the engine version to be bumped. Please double check userspace/engine/falco_engine_version.h file. See versioning for FALCO_ENGINE_VERSION. /hold |
mstemm
force-pushed
the
reject-mismatched-sources-rules-changes
branch
11 times, most recently
from
dc56b3e to
181e45e
Compare
jasondellaluce
previously approved these changes
Oct 21, 2024
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: f8e26de41c24d3e88628c14b6752eae961e09ed3
|
mstemm
force-pushed
the
reject-mismatched-sources-rules-changes
branch
from
181e45e to
ff211ed
Compare
It's possible that someone might want to override a property for a non-syscall rule source. To assist in this, decode any source property for rules with append/override and save it in the rule_update_info object. For the source property only, the value for source can be empty e.g. 'source: ' or an empty string e.g. 'source: ""'. Both of those are considered valid but result in an empty source. A later change will ensure that the sources match up when appending/redefining/overriding/enabling. Signed-off-by: Mark Stemm <mark.stemm@gmail.com>
In places where a second rule definition might replace, append to, or replace items from a base rule, ensure that the source of the second rule definiton matches the first. This already existed for defines, but for other changes. There was a bug where a second definition might exist for a different source, but the additional rule was used anyway. This now returns the same error for these other changes e.g. "Rule has been re-defined..." as define. Signed-off-by: Mark Stemm <mark.stemm@gmail.com>
Add additional unit tests to verify that rule loading fails when a second rules object has a different source but the name of an existing rules object. Also add tests for additional rules having an empty source. Signed-off-by: Mark Stemm <mark.stemm@gmail.com>
mstemm
force-pushed
the
reject-mismatched-sources-rules-changes
branch
from
ff211ed to
0f2ae34
Compare
jasondellaluce
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2024
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: f0440bfccf20a2bd61217d01cf79b9722030a6d0
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: FedeDP, mstemm The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/milestone 0.40.0 |
|
/unhold |
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.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area engine
What this PR does / why we need it:
This fixes a bug where a second rule definition for a different source is mistakenly combined with the first rule definition of a different source. This now returns the same error as when defining a second rule.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3382
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: