I forgot one thing. If you did not already find it, have a look at this: http://www.rsyslog.com/doc-generic_design.html
The filter/function plugins are conceptually on the "PLG Ext" et al layer in this chart. This is not specifically rsyslog design, but it comes from the same source and conveys the same basic idea ;) [I initially did that description for some generic IETF work]. Maybe it is useful. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 4:57 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Running hashes > > On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 01:45 -0600, RB wrote: > > Acting on an old comment from a friend, I decided to look into what > > it'd take to get rsyslog to perform running hashes of logs. > > Conceptually, it's pretty simple - every Nth message inject one > > message containing the hash of the previous N messages (including the > > previous hash message). > > Yes - this is the way IETF's upcoming syslog-sign is using hashes. It > may be tempting to use that mode for the logs, too... > > > It also gave me an excuse to start digging > > into the rsyslog code. > > > > At first I thought I could do it with a property replacer, but that > > seems a wash since those are wholly message-based and don't [seem to] > > give the opportunity to store information (even a running hash) of > > prior messages. > > That's right and that's by design. The property replacer is a one-way > road. > > > A plugin was my next hope, but there doesn't seem to > > be a good mechanism to pipeline those together - AFAICT they're > > expected to be single ingress/egress points, with no interstitial > > stages. > > That's definitely true for input and output plugins. They, by very > definition, are at either end of the processing flow. > > > I see the code for loading other objects as Rainer mentioned > > in April, but that seems more for central functionality than for > > chaining modules together. > > You are absolutely correct. These objects are (mostly) for internal > things, so to save us static binding - and the ability to use different > drivers for different needs, e.g. for different network transport > protocols (and maybe later for different, even-smaller and more > abstracted, database drivers). > > > This all brings me back to one of my original questions for rsyslog - > > is module chaining something that is even on your radar? I'm > thinking > > normalization, hashing, encryption, etc. Almost feels like there > > should be another layer here, maybe a "mangle" plugin interface that > > could stack in after im* and before om*? > > You are definitely on the right route. If you look at the plugin > definitions, there is another class, not yet implemented, of plugins: > they are called "filter plugins". They will have the ability to take a > message, modify it (or inject a new one based on previous messages) and > so on - at least this is how it was designed roughly a year ago. > > With the arrival of the scripting language (in February, if I correctly > remember), new players have entered the field: library plugins that > expose function calls to the script engine. So far, they do NOT yet > exist, but they are pretty well thought out. They are probably the > first > thing I will implement when I start bringing the script engine to its > full power. These functions may also be a good place to provide a > "mangling" interface. I am still a bit undecided, maybe I will not 100% > design this, but let the code evolve (sometimes, I think, it is good to > look at code written and see if that "extra bit" just naturally fits > in...). > > A bit problematic is the order of events (and message modification) > when > the message object is run asynchronously through multiple action > queues. > For each queue, the message is forked, so it requires careful design > when to modify which of the forked messages. This can be very powerful, > but also quite complex to configure (where the scripting language > hopefully comes in handy). > > Another, internal, thing is message synchronization. So far, property > creation and modification never requires sync objects (like mutexes), > because the always happen in a single thread (for ONE specific message, > of course). With mangling capabilities, things change considerably, > property set methods than need sync capability. This must be > implemented > in a way that does not hurt the (for more frequent) case of message > object creation. > > Of course, all of this is doable and the base design is there :) I just > wanted to provide an idea why it may take a little while to implement. > Comments and suggestions are most welcome, especially as this is among > the next things on my todo list (if priorities don't change). > > Rainer > > > > > > RB > > _______________________________________________ > > rsyslog mailing list > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
