Dns move keywords to rust 3195 v1.1

[catenacyber]

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/3195 (generic)

Describe changes:

• dns: move keywords to rust

#11932 next protocol

Draft : still need to craft SV tests ro replace unit tests DetectDnsQueryTest

[catenacyber]

@jasonish what is going on here for lua ?

[jasonish]

? I'm not really familiar with this bit. Are these registrations for Lua only?

[catenacyber]

Apparently cf git grep '"dns_request"' it gets used in detect-lua.c and it is needed for the SV test about dns and lua

[jasonish]

I think we're looking to cleanup all this Lua stuff related to this. I admit I'm not that familiar with how it works at this time.

[jasonish]

Should probably have its own ticket, and be related to this roadmap entry: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7140

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.89247% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 80.54%. Comparing base (d63ad75) to head (ad1b4a3).
Report is 16 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #12483      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.52%   80.54%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         923      917       -6     
  Lines      259176   258714     -462     
==========================================
- Hits       208708   208375     -333     
+ Misses      50468    50339     -129     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus	56.16% <61.42%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
livemode	19.40% <35.60%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
pcap	44.22% <54.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
suricata-verify	63.35% <92.87%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
unittests	58.40% <47.31%> (-0.06%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[jasonish]

I think we should resolve #11647 before doing this - which I plan on getting to. That and DNS parity are next on my 8 priority list after wrapping up some Lua stuff this week or next.

[suricata-qa]

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 24366

[catenacyber]

Should probably have its own ticket, and be related to this roadmap entry: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7140

This is not a protocol conversion, just detect keywords moving wrapper code from c to rust...

[catenacyber]

I think we should resolve #11647 before doing this - which I plan on getting to. That and DNS parity are next on my 8 priority list after wrapping up some Lua stuff this week or next.

This is kind of independent of #11647 which is adding a new keyword, or am I missing something?

[jasonish]

I think we should resolve #11647 before doing this - which I plan on getting to. That and DNS parity are next on my 8 priority list after wrapping up some Lua stuff this week or next.

This is kind of independent of #11647 which is adding a new keyword, or am I missing something?

Maybe it won't create conflicts. But adding new keywords in C, and converting keywords to Rust do sound conflicting :)

[jasonish]

I think we should resolve #11647 before doing this - which I plan on getting to. That and DNS parity are next on my 8 priority list after wrapping up some Lua stuff this week or next.

This is kind of independent of #11647 which is adding a new keyword, or am I missing something?

And it does conflict with some WIP I have on https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5642.

[catenacyber]

But adding new keywords in C, and converting keywords to Rust do sound conflicting :)

I see how it sounds, but it is not conflicting in essence and I can do the new keywords conversion later

And it does conflict with some WIP I have on https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5642.

Does this help you ?
I feel rust way is faster to code such keywords...

[catenacyber]

Next in #12496