Project

General

Profile

Actions

Optimization #6572

open

Bug #5711: runmodes: Suricata does not hint anything about missing runmode

runmodes: fix `--list-runmodes` output

Added by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 5 months ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Target version:
Effort:
Difficulty:
Label:
Beginner, Good First Issue

Description

As raised on https://github.com/OISF/suricata/pull/9743#discussion_r1386115590
the output of `--list-runmodes` isn't very useful at the moment.

We must consider what should be shown for that command.

Actions #1

Updated by Comfort Amaechi 5 months ago

If I may ask, what specific aspects of the current --list-runmodes output that you find lacking or could be improved?
Could you provide more details on the likely information or format you envision for the improved --list-runmodes output

Actions #2

Updated by Victor Julien 5 months ago

How about something like:

# suricata --list-runmodes

pcap:
  default runmode: autofp
  supported runmodes: single, autofp, workers
  description: libpcap based capture method
  notes: workers is only useful with NIC specific libpcap implementation supporting multi-capture (see XXX)
  yaml section: pcap
  commandline: --pcap or --pcap=<dev>
  supported features: none
af-packet:
  default runmode: workers
  supported runmodes: single, autofp, workers
  ...
  notes: on Linux -i uses af-packet by default
  supported features: ips csum_offload

Actions #3

Updated by Comfort Amaechi 5 months ago

Thank you for providing the suggested format. The proposed structure provides a clear and detailed overview of each runmode. Also Could you please provide insights on the preferred format for this output? For example, should it follow a tabular structure like the initial output or a different format?

Actions #4

Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 5 months ago

Comfort Amaechi wrote in #note-3:

Thank you for providing the suggested format. The proposed structure provides a clear and detailed overview of each runmode. Also Could you please provide insights on the preferred format for this output? For example, should it follow a tabular structure like the initial output or a different format?

I would say follow the example Victor has given, I believe that's similar to what we currently have, right?

Actions #5

Updated by Lukas Sismis about 2 months ago

  • Label Beginner, Good First Issue added
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF