Wireshark mailing list archives
So why is _ws.expert an FT_PROTOCOL field rather than an FT_STRING field?
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:20:11 -0700
It's really just shown as a string, and doesn't actually refer to packet data from a tvbuff.
This is causing at least one crash in bug 12335:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12335
and, to fix the crash I'm seeing, we'd have to change the epan/ftypes/ftype-tvbuff.c cmp_contains() routines to check
for the field not actually having a tvbuff and treating it as a string comparison instead. Furthermore, all the
*other* routines that assume a tvbuff would *also* have to be changed to handle a null tvbuff, to prevent similar
crashes in other cases.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- So why is _ws.expert an FT_PROTOCOL field rather than an FT_STRING field? Guy Harris (Apr 12)
- Re: So why is _ws.expert an FT_PROTOCOL field rather than an FT_STRING field? Michael Mann (Apr 12)
- Re: So why is _ws.expert an FT_PROTOCOL field rather than an FT_STRING field? Guy Harris (Apr 12)
- Re: So why is _ws.expert an FT_PROTOCOL field rather than an FT_STRING field? Michael Mann (Apr 12)
