Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector
From: João Valverde <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 00:42:42 +0100
On 17/08/19 11:16, Peter Wu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:09:43AM +0100, João Valverde wrote:Using a hash table is an indirect method of passing data. A void pointer function argument is a direct method of passing data. So why would the former present problems with nested TLS traffic and the latter not? Any limitations present in one would be present in the other and vice-versa. What am I missing?In a direct approach, the caller either passes data or it passes NULL. With indirect methods, the caller may pass data, but if it does not, then the setting from previous layers would be applied, unless every caller is audited and modified to clear the data. This is the "unexpected interference" problem I mentioned in the review comments.
The indirect approach naturally assumes a dissector won't behave whimsically about argument passing when called multiple times for the same frame (tunneling, etc).
___________________________________________________________________________ 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:
- payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector Dario Lombardo (Aug 15)
- Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector Anders Broman (Aug 15)
- Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector Peter Wu (Aug 15)
- Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector João Valverde (Aug 16)
- Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector Peter Wu (Aug 17)
- Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector João Valverde (Aug 17)
- Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector Peter Wu (Aug 15)
- Re: payload_proto_id in SCPT dissector Anders Broman (Aug 15)