HAProxy tcp log format missing in grok patterns

[jguay]

• TCP Proxy format example event per doc integration points to :

  haproxy[14387]: 10.0.1.2:33313 [06/Feb/2009:12:12:51.443] fnt bck/srv1 0/0/5007 212 -- 0/0/0/0/3 0/0

• Our grok in logs-haproxy.log-1.6.0 (the third processor after setting ECS version and renaming message to event.original):

  {
  "grok": {
    "field": "event.original",
    "patterns": [
      "%{HAPROXY_DATE:haproxy.request_date} %{IPORHOST:haproxy.source} %{PROG:process.name}(?:\\[%{POSINT:process.pid:long}\\])?: %{GREEDYDATA} (%{IPORHOST:source.address}|-):%{POSINT:source.port:long} %{WORD} %{IPORHOST:destination.ip}:%{POSINT:destination.port:long} \\(%{WORD:haproxy.frontend_name}/%{WORD:haproxy.mode}\\)",
      "(%{NOTSPACE:process.name}\\[%{NUMBER:process.pid:long}\\]: )?(%{IP:source.address}|-):%{NUMBER:source.port:long} \\[%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.request_date}\\] %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.frontend_name} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.backend_name}/%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.server_name} (%{IPORHOST:destination.address} )?%{NUMBER:haproxy.http.request.time_wait_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.total_waiting_time_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connection_wait_time_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.http.request.time_wait_without_data_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:temp.duration:long} %{NUMBER:http.response.status_code:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.bytes_read:long} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.http.request.captured_cookie} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.http.response.captured_cookie} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.termination_state} %{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.active:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.frontend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.backend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.server:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.retries:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.server_queue:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.backend_queue:long} (\\{%{DATA:haproxy.http.request.captured_headers}\\} \\{%{DATA:haproxy.http.response.captured_headers}\\} |\\{%{DATA}\\} )?\"%{GREEDYDATA:haproxy.http.request.raw_request_line}\"( %{HTTPS_DATA})?",
      "(%{NOTSPACE:process.name}\\[%{NUMBER:process.pid:long}\\]: )?(%{IP:source.address}|-):%{NUMBER:source.port:long} \\[%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.request_date}\\] %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.frontend_name}/%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.bind_name} %{GREEDYDATA:haproxy.error_message}",
      "%{HAPROXY_DATE} %{IPORHOST:haproxy.source} (%{NOTSPACE:process.name}\\[%{NUMBER:process.pid:long}\\]: )?(%{IP:source.address}|-):%{NUMBER:source.port:long} \\[%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.request_date}\\] %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.frontend_name} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.backend_name}/%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.server_name} %{NUMBER:haproxy.total_waiting_time_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connection_wait_time_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:temp.duration:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.bytes_read:long} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.termination_state} %{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.active:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.frontend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.backend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.server:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.retries:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.server_queue:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.backend_queue:long}"
    ],
    "ignore_missing": false,
    "pattern_definitions": {
      "HAPROXY_DATE": "(%{MONTHDAY}[/-]%{MONTH}[/-]%{YEAR}:%{HOUR}:%{MINUTE}:%{SECOND})|%{SYSLOGTIMESTAMP}",
      "HTTPS_DATA": "%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.fc_err:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.ssl_fc_err:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.ssl_c_err:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.ssl_c_ca_err:long}/%{NUMBER:temp.ssl_fc_is_resumed:long} %{HOSTNAME:tls.client.server_name}/%{DATA:tls.version_protocol}v%{NUMBER:tls.version}/%{NOTSPACE:tls.cipher}"
    }
  }
  }

• The doc mentions :

  Field   Format                                Extract from the example above
    1   process_name '[' pid ']:'                            haproxy[14387]:
    2   client_ip ':' client_port                             10.0.1.2:33313
    3   '[' accept_date ']'                       [06/Feb/2009:12:12:51.443]
    4   frontend_name                                                    fnt
    5   backend_name '/' server_name                                bck/srv1
    6   Tw '/' Tc '/' Tt*                                           0/0/5007
    7   bytes_read*                                                      212
    8   termination_state                                                 --
    9   actconn '/' feconn '/' beconn '/' srv_conn '/' retries*    0/0/0/0/3
   10   srv_queue '/' backend_queue                                      0/0

• This grok would match so can probably be used for the fix :

  (%{NOTSPACE:process.name}\[%{NUMBER:process.pid:long}\]: )?(%{IP:source.address}|-):%{NUMBER:source.port:long} \[%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.request_date}\] %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.frontend_name} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.backend_name}/%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.server_name} (%{IPORHOST:destination.address} )?%{NUMBER:haproxy.http.request.time_wait_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.total_waiting_time_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connection_wait_time_ms:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.bytes_read:long} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.termination_state} %{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.active:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.frontend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.backend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.server:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.retries:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.server_queue:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.backend_queue:long}

Or the same json-escaped appending to existing list (I am not sure which order we want to use for performance) :

"(%{NOTSPACE:process.name}\\[%{NUMBER:process.pid:long}\\]: )?(%{IP:source.address}|-):%{NUMBER:source.port:long} \\[%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.request_date}\\] %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.frontend_name} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.backend_name}/%{NOTSPACE:haproxy.server_name} (%{IPORHOST:destination.address} )?%{NUMBER:haproxy.http.request.time_wait_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.total_waiting_time_ms:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connection_wait_time_ms:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.bytes_read:long} %{NOTSPACE:haproxy.termination_state} %{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.active:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.frontend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.backend:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.server:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.connections.retries:long} %{NUMBER:haproxy.server_queue:long}/%{NUMBER:haproxy.backend_queue:long}"

[HGS9761]

Hello Can this change that seems to be quite straight forward be pushed in order to get this in a new version?

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/fleet (Team:Fleet)

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/elastic-agent (Team:Elastic-Agent)

[botelastic[bot]]

Hi! We just realized that we haven't looked into this issue in a while. We're sorry! We're labeling this issue as Stale to make it hit our filters and make sure we get back to it as soon as possible. In the meantime, it'd be extremely helpful if you could take a look at it as well and confirm its relevance. A simple comment with a nice emoji will be enough :+1. Thank you for your contribution!