summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/syslog_parsing.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/syslog_parsing.html')
-rw-r--r--doc/syslog_parsing.html210
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 210 deletions
diff --git a/doc/syslog_parsing.html b/doc/syslog_parsing.html
deleted file mode 100644
index 1ccec6f..0000000
--- a/doc/syslog_parsing.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,210 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
-<html><head><title>syslog parsing in rsyslog</title>
-</head>
-<body>
-<h1>syslog parsing in rsyslog</h1>
-<p><small><i>Written by <a href="http://www.gerhards.net/rainer">Rainer Gerhards</a>
-(2008-09-23)</i></small></p>
-<p><b>We regularly receive messages asking why <a href="http://www.rsyslog.com">rsyslog</a>
-parses this or that message incorrectly.</b> Of course, it turns out that rsyslog does
-the right thing, but the message sender does not. And also of course, this is not even
-of the slightest help to the end user experiencing the problem ;). So I thought I write this
-paper. It describes the problem source and shows potential solutions (aha!).
-<h2>Syslog Standardization</h2>
-The syslog protocol has not been standardized until relatively recently.The first document "smelling" a bit
-like a standard is <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3164.txt">RFC 3164</a>, which dates back
-to August 2001. The problem is that this document is no real standard. It has assigned "informational"
-status by the <a href="http://www.ietf.org">IETF</a> which means it provides some hopefully
-useful information but does not demand anything. It is impossible to "comply" to an informational
-document. This, of course, doesn't stop marketing guys from telling they comply to RFC3164 and
-it also does not stop some techs to tell you "this and that does not comply to RFC3164, so it is
-&lt;anybody else but them&gt;'s fault".
-<p>Then, there is <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3195.txt">RFC3195</a>, which is
-a real standard. In it's section 3 it makes (a somewhat questionable) reference to (informational)
-RFC 3164 which may be interpreted in a way that RFC3195 standardizes the format layed out
-in RFC 3164 by virtue of referencing them. So RFC3195 seems to extend its standardization
-domain to the concepts layed out in RFC 3164 (which is why I tend to find that refrence
-questionable). In that sense, RFC3195 standardizes the format informationally described in
-RFC3164, Section 4. But it demands it only for the scope of RFC3195, which is syslog over
-BEEP - and NOT syslog over UDP. So one may argue whether or not the RFC3164 format could
-be considered a standard for any non-BEEP (including UDP) syslog, too. In the strict view
-I tend to have, it does not. Refering to the RFC3195 context usually does not help,
-because there are virtually no RFC3195 implementations available (at this time,
-I would consider this RFC a failure).
-<p>Now let's for a short moment assume that RFC3195 would somehow be able to demand
-RFC3164 format for non-BEEP syslog. So we could use RFC3164 format as a standard. But does
-that really help? Let's cite RFC 3164, right at the begining of section 4 (actually, this
-is the first sentence):
-<blockquote>
-<pre>
- The payload of any IP packet that has a UDP destination port of 514
- MUST be treated as a syslog message.
-<pre>
-</blockquote>
-<p>Think a bit about it: this means that whatever is send to port 514 must be considered
-a valid syslog message. No format at all is demanded. So if "this is junk" is sent to
-UDP port 514 - voila, we have a valid message (interestingly, it is no longer a syslog
-message if it is sent to port 515 ;)). You may now argue that I am overdoing. So let's
-cite RFC 3164, Section 5.4, Example 2:
-<blockquote>
-<pre>
- Example 2
-
- Use the BFG!
-
- While this is a valid message, it has extraordinarily little useful
- information.
-</pre>
-</blockquote>
-<p>As you can see, RFC3164 explicitely states that no format at all is required.
-<p>Now a side-note is due: all of this does not mean that the RFC3164 authors
-did not know what they were doing. No, right the contrary is true: RFC3164 mission
-is to describe what has been seen in practice as syslog messages and the
-conclusion is quite right that there is no common understanding on the
-message format. This is also the reason why RFC3164 is an informational document:
-it provides useful information, but does not precisely specify anything.
-<p>After all of this bashing, I now have to admit that RFC3164 has some format
-recommendations layed out in section 4. The format described has quite some
-value in it and implementors recently try to follow it. This format is usually meant
-when someone tells you that a software is "RFC3164 compliant" or expects "RFC3164 compliant messages".
-I also have to admit that rsyslog also uses this format and, in the sense outlined here,
-expects messages received to be "RFC3164 compliant" (knowingly that such a beast does not
-exist - I am simply lying here ;)).
-<p>Please note that there is some relief of the situation in reach. There is a new normative
-syslog RFC series upcoming, and it specifies a standard message format. At the time of
-this writing, the main documents are sitting in the RFC editor queue waiting for a transport
-mapping to be completed. I personally expect them to be assigned RFC numbers in 2009.
-<h2>Practical Format Requirements</h2>
-<p>From a practical point of view, the message format expected (and generated by
-default in legacy mode) is:
-<pre><code>
-&lt;PRI&gt;TIMESTAMP SP HOST SP TAG MSG(Freetext)
-</code></pre>
-<p>SP is the ASCII "space" character and the definition of the rest of the fields
-can be taken from RFC3164. Please note that there also is a lot of confusion on what
-syntax and semantics the TAG actually has. This format is called "legacy syslog" because
-it is not well specified (as you know by now) and has been "inherited from the real world".
-<p>Rsyslog offers two parsers: one for the upcoming RFC series and one for legacy format. We
-concentrate on the later. That parser applies some logic to detect missing hostnames,
-is able to handle various ways the TIMESTAMP is typically malformed. In short it applies
-a lot of guesswork in trying to figure out what a message really means. I am sure the
-guessing algorithm can be improved, and I am always trying that when I see new malformed
-messages (and there is an ample set of them...). However, this finds its limits where
-it is not possible to differentiate between two entities which could be either.
-For example, look at this message:
-<pre><code>
-&lt;144&gt;Tue Sep 23 11:40:01 taghost sample message
-</code></pre>
-<p>Does it contain a hostname? Mabye. The value "taghost" is a valid hostname. Of course, it is
-also a valid tag. If it is a hostname, the tag's value is "sample" and the msg value is "message".
-Or is the hostname missing, the tag is "taghost" and msg is "sample message"? As a human, I tend
-to say the later interpretation is correct. But that's hard to tell the message parser (and, no, I do
-not intend to apply artificial intelligence just to guess what the hostname value is...).
-<p>One approach is to configure the parser so that it never expects hostnames. This becomes problematic
-if you receive messages from multiple devices. Over time, I may implement parser conditionals,
-but this is not yet available and I am not really sure if it is needed comlexity...
-<p>Things like this, happen. Even more scary formats happen in practice. Even from mainstream
-vendors. For example, I was just asked about this message (which, btw, finally made me
-write this article here):
-<pre></code>
-"<130> [ERROR] iapp_socket_task.c 399: iappSocketTask: iappRecvPkt returned error"
-</code></pre>
-<p>If you compare it with the format RFC3164 "suggests", you'll quickly notice that
-the message is "a bit" malformed. Actually, even my human intelligence is not sufficient
-to guess if there is a TAG or not (is "[ERROR]" a tag or part of the message). I may not be
-the smartest guy, but don't expect me to program a parser that is smarter than me.
-<p>To the best of my konwledge, these vendor's device's syslog format can be configured, so it
-would proabably be a good idea to include a (sufficiently well-formed) timestamp,
-the sending hostname and (maybe?) a tag to make this message well parseable.
-I will also once again take this sample and see if we can apply some guesswork.
-For example, "[" can not be part of a well-formed TIMESTAMP, so logic can conclude
-there is not TIMESTAMP. Also, "[" can not be used inside a valid hostname, so
-logic can conclude that the message contains no hostname. Even if I implement this
-logic (which I will probably do), this is a partial solution: it is impossible to
-guess if there is a tag or not (honestly!). And, even worse, it is a solution only for
-those set of messages that can be handled by the logic described. Now consider this
-hypothetical message:
-<pre></code>
-"<130> [ERROR] host.example.net 2008-09-23 11-40-22 PST iapp_socket_task.c 399: iappSocketTask: iappRecvPkt returned error"
-</code></pre>
-<p>Obviously, it requires additional guesswork. If we iterate over all the cases, we
-can very quickly see that it is impossible to guess everything correct. In the example above
-we can not even surely tell if PST should be a timezone or some other message property.
-<p>A potential solution is to generate a parser-table based parser, but this requires
-considerable effort and also has quite some runtime overhead. I try to avoid this for
-now (but I may do it, especially if someone sponsors this work ;)). Side-note: if you want
-to be a bit scared about potential formats, you may want to have a look at my paper
-<i>&quot;<a href="http://www.monitorware.com/en/workinprogress/nature-of-syslog-data.php">On the Nature of Syslog Data</a>&quot;</i>.
-<h2>Work-Around</h2>
-<p><b>The number one work-around is to configure your devices so that they emit
-(sufficiently) well-formed messages.</b> You should by now know what these look
-like.
-<p>If that cure is not available, there are some things you can do in rsyslog to
-handle the situation. First of all, be sure to read about
-<a href="rsyslog_conf.html">rsyslog.conf format</a>
-and the <a href="property_replacer.html">property replacer and properties</a> specifically.
-You need to understand that everything is configured in rsyslog. And that the message is parsed
-into properties. There are also properties available which do not stem back directly to parsing.
-Most importantly, %fromhost% property holds the name of the system rsyslog received
-the message from. In non-relay cases, this can be used instead of hostname. In relay cases,
-there is no cure other than to either fix the orginal sender or at least one of the
-relays in front of the rsyslog instance in question. Similarly, you can use %timegenerated%
-instead of %timereported%. Timegenerated is the time the message hit rsyslog for the first
-time. For non-relayed, locally connected peers, Timegenerated should be a very close approximation
-of the actual time a message was formed at the sender (depending, of course, on potential
-internal queueing inside the sender).
-Also, you may use the
-%rawmsg% property together with the several extraction modes the property replacer supports.
-Rawmsg contains the message as it is received from the remote peer. In a sense, you can
-implement a post-parser with this method.
-<p>To use these properties, you need to define your own templates and assign them. Details
-can be found in the above-quoted documentation. Just let's do a quick example. Let's say
-you have the horrible message shown above and can not fix the sending device for
-some good reason. In rsyslog.conf, you used to say:
-<pre><code>
-*.* /var/log/somefile
-</code></pre>
-<p>Of course, things do not work out well with that ill-formed message. So you decide
-to dump the rawmsg to the file and pull the remote host and time of message generation
-from rsyslog's internal properties (which, btw, is clever, because otherwise there is no
-indication of these two properties...). So you need to define a template for that and
-make sure the template is used with your file logging action. This is how it may look:
-<pre><code>
-$template, MalfromedMsgFormater,"%timegenerated% %fromhost% %rawmsg:::drop-last-lf%\n"
-*.* /var/log/somefile;MalformedMsgFormatter
-</code></pre>
-<p>This will make your log much nicer, but not look perfect. Experiment a bit
-with the available properties and replacer extraction options to fine-tune it
-to your needs.
-<h2>The Ultimate Solution...</h2>
-<p>Is available with rsyslog 5.3.4 and above. Here, we can define so-called custom
-parsers. These are plugin modules, written in C and adapted to a specific message format
-need. The big plus of custom parsers is that they offer excellent performance and unlimited
-possibilities - far better than any work-around could do. Custom parsers can be
-<a href="rsconf1_rulesetparser.html">bound to specific rule sets</a>
-(and thus listening) ports with relative ease. The only con is that they must be written.
-However, if you are lucky, a parser for your device may already exist. If not, you can
-opt to write it yourself, what is not too hard if you know some C. Alternatively,
-Adiscon can program one for you as part of the
-<a href="http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services">rsyslog professional services offering</a>.
-In any case, you should seriously consider custom parsers as an alternative if you can not
-reconfigure your device to send decent message format.
-<h2>Wrap-Up</h2>
-<p>Syslog message format is not sufficiently standardized. There exists a weak
-"standard" format, which is used by a good number of implementations. However, there
-exist many others, including mainstream vendor implementations, which have a
-(sometimes horribly) different format. Rsyslog tries to deal with anomalies but
-can not guess right in all instances. If possible, the sender should be configured
-to submit well-formed messages. If that is not possible, you can work around these
-issues with rsyslog's property replacer and template system. Or you can use a suitable
-message parser or write one for your needs.
-<p>I hope this is a useful guide. You may also have a look at the
-<a href="troubleshoot.html">rsyslog troubleshooting guide</a> for further help and places where
-to ask questions.
-<p>[<a href="manual.html">manual index</a>] [<a href="http://www.rsyslog.com/">rsyslog site</a>]</p>
-<p><font size="2">This documentation is part of the
-<a href="http://www.rsyslog.com/">rsyslog</a> project.<br>
-Copyright &copy; 2009 by <a href="http://www.gerhards.net/rainer">Rainer
-Gerhards</a> and <a href="http://www.adiscon.com/">Adiscon</a>.
-Released under the GNU GPL version 3 or higher.</font></p>
-</body></html>