[Oisf-users] Suricata using 35% cpu with no load?

Duane Howard duane.security at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 21:17:36 UTC 2015


I can reproduce. I ran it on a single low volume real NIC with the same
result. Nothing terribly interesting in suricata.log with -vv enabled:
Here's the logs after rule and config loading:

30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Core dump size set to unlimited.
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Unified2-alert initialized: filename
suricata.u2, limit 128 MB
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Syslog output initialized
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Unable to find af-packet config for
interface "eth0" or "default", using default value
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Going to use 1 thread(s)
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Enabling zero copy mode
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - RunModeIdsAFPWorkers initialised
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Notice> - all 1 packet processing threads, 3
management threads initialized, engine started.
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Using interface 'eth0' via socket 7
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - All AFP capture threads are running.
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Thread AFPacketeth01 using socket 7
30/7/2015 -- 21:14:06 - <Info> - Starting to read on AFPacketeth01
^C30/7/2015 -- 21:15:27 - <Notice> - Signal Received.  Stopping engine.
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:27 - <Info> - 0 new flows, 0 established flows were
timed out, 0 flows in closed state
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - time elapsed 81.925s
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - (AFPacketeth01) Kernel: Packets 3372,
dropped 0
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - (AFPacketeth01) Packets 3345, bytes 1318862
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - Stream TCP processed 2723 TCP packets
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - (AFPacketeth01) Alerts 0
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - Alert unified2 module wrote 0 alerts
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - host memory usage: 390144 bytes, maximum:
16777216
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Info> - cleaning up signature grouping
structure... complete
30/7/2015 -- 21:15:28 - <Notice> - Stats for 'eth0':  pkts: 3372, drop: 0
(0.00%), invalid chksum: 0


On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 30 jul 2015, at 21:50, Duane Howard <duane.security at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Can you reproduce this problem at will? Anything in verbose mode in
> Suricata.log?
>
> Can you narrow it down to a relation of a single interface configuration
> (as you mention in your initial mail)?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> This is Suricata version 2.0.8 RELEASE
> Features: PCAP_SET_BUFF LIBPCAP_VERSION_MAJOR=1 PF_RING AF_PACKET
> HAVE_PACKET_FANOUT LIBCAP_NG LIBNET1.1 HAVE_HTP_URI_NORMALIZE_HOOK
> SIMD support: none
> Atomic intrisics: 1 2 4 8 byte(s)
> 64-bits, Little-endian architecture
> GCC version 4.6.3, C version 199901
> compiled with -fstack-protector
> compiled with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> L1 cache line size (CLS)=64
> compiled with LibHTP v0.5.17, linked against LibHTP v0.5.17
> Suricata Configuration:
>   AF_PACKET support:                       yes
>   PF_RING support:                         yes
>   NFQueue support:                         no
>   NFLOG support:                           no
>   IPFW support:                            no
>   DAG enabled:                             no
>   Napatech enabled:                        no
>   Unix socket enabled:                     no
>   Detection enabled:                       yes
>
>   libnss support:                          no
>   libnspr support:                         no
>   libjansson support:                      no
>   Prelude support:                         no
>   PCRE jit:                                no
>   LUA support:                             no
>   libluajit:                               no
>   libgeoip:                                yes
>   Non-bundled htp:                         yes
>   Old barnyard2 support:                   no
>   CUDA enabled:                            no
>
>   Suricatasc install:                      yes
>
>   Unit tests enabled:                      no
>   Debug output enabled:                    no
>   Debug validation enabled:                no
>   Profiling enabled:                       no
>   Profiling locks enabled:                 no
>   Coccinelle / spatch:                     no
>
> Generic build parameters:
>   Installation prefix (--prefix):          /usr
>   Configuration directory (--sysconfdir):  /etc/suricata/
>   Log directory (--localstatedir) :        /var/log/suricata/
>
>   Host:                                    x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
>   GCC binary:                              gcc
>   GCC Protect enabled:                     no
>   GCC march native enabled:                no
>   GCC Profile enabled:                     no
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 30 jul 2015, at 20:58, Duane Howard <duane.security at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When closing suri it reports 0 packets for the interface I'm mainly
>> concerned with. There's also nothing in fast or other logs to indicate
>> traffic.
>>
>> 30/7/2015 -- 19:58:41 - <Notice> - Stats for 'bond0':  pkts: 0, drop: 0
>> (-nan%), invalid chksum: 0
>>
>>
>> What is the output of suricata --build-info ?
>>
>> If you have perf tools installed have a look at what in Suricata uses the
>> most CPU -
>> perf top -p pidofsuri
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Alan Wanderley dos Santos <
>> alan.santos at rnp.br> wrote:
>>
>>> Didi you see the fast.log and others logs?
>>>
>>> Maybe there are some traffic (icmp or broadcast for example) coming to
>>> virtual machine, even little being data, can generated a lot of logs and
>>> degree the performance.
>>>
>>> I had a similar situation on a VM of testing.
>>>
>>> Just a shot into darkness rsrs
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> Alan Santos
>>> Analista de Seguran├ža
>>> Centro de Atendimento a Incidentes de Seguran├ža (CAIS)
>>> Rede Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa (RNP)
>>> (19) 3787-3314 | alan.santos at rnp.br
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *De: *"Duane Howard" <duane.security at gmail.com>
>>> *Para: *"oisf-users" <oisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.org>
>>> *Enviadas: *Quinta-feira, 30 de julho de 2015 16:50:51
>>> *Assunto: *[Oisf-users] Suricata using 35% cpu with no load?
>>>
>>> I've got a random virtual testing machine, and I'm seeing Suricata
>>> sitting at about 35% CPU load, even though there's absolutely no traffic
>>> heading to it at the moment. Is there an easy way to get Suricata to tell
>>> me what it's doing that would cause this? It occurs on real interfaces with
>>> low traffic, loopback, as well as bonds where there's no trafic.
>>> ./d
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Suricata IDS Users mailing list: oisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.org
>>> Site: http://suricata-ids.org | Support:
>>> http://suricata-ids.org/support/
>>> List:
>>> https://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>>> Suricata User Conference November 4 & 5 in Barcelona:
>>> http://oisfevents.net
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Suricata IDS Users mailing list: oisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.org
>> Site: http://suricata-ids.org | Support: http://suricata-ids.org/support/
>> List: https://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>> Suricata User Conference November 4 & 5 in Barcelona:
>> http://oisfevents.net
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20150730/34ffdf69/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Oisf-users mailing list