-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 395
[AWSX] fix(logs fowarder): Skip header line on VPC flow logs parsing #1044
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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 file contains hidden or 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 file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💭 thought: I'm not fan of this as it puts back some source identification in the forwarder and also some business logic.
While this check is the current method for S3-based VPC Flow Log, we also support CloudWatch logs for VPC Flow Logs (they seems to not face the issue). Is there we can implement this on backend side so that if we update the source identification we don't have two places to maintain it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is doable from the backend, but requires a change in the logic as we won't know which line comes first on the intake side. For that we need to perform a keyword check maybe ? For the file key, it's already included in the log payload so we could use that instead of doing the check here.
The only downside is that we're going to still send the log and filter it out in the backend.
Regarding the source identification I agree that this brings back some business logic, but it doesn't add any extra fields to the log itself. We're still going to keep some business logic eventually (same goes for cloudtrail), but I think it should be fine if we don't use it amending payload to the log itself.
I'm fine with either choices by the way, this one seemed more logical as we trim sending the log at the source and not filter it out on the back-end side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You got me at the "we don't know the order on backend side" so Ok for this.