Wireshark mailing list archives

Re: Hierarchy of fields & offsets again, more potential offenders


From: Stig Bjørlykke <stig () bjorlykke org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:55:18 +0200

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com> wrote:
What about marking it as PROTO_ITEM_SET_GENERATED() as a first step? Tis
value is inferred from the tvb length and not a real field.

It's not a generated field (the bytes are fetched directly from the
packet without any modifications) so this would be wrong.

I suppose Sake has a use case for the tcp.payload which may lead us to
a hint for how to mark such fields?
Because we may end up with udp.payload, ssl.payload, http.payload,
sctp.payload, tftp.payload, etc. and that would mess up a bit if we
don't handle them correct.  Right?


-- 
Stig Bjørlykke
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe

Current thread: