Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: [Ethereal-dev] patch for packet-giop.c response_flags

[Bernd Becker <bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here is a patch I had promised to Nicolas De Montbel a while ago in
http://www.ethereal.com/lists/ethereal-dev/200303/msg00161.html

The response_flags in the Request_Header should not be mapped
one to one to the SyncScope values. Certain SyncScope values
just seem to imply certain response_flags according to a
comment in the Corba Spec v3.0, 15-35.
So now I print the numeric value of response_flags followed
by a string with the possible corresponding SyncScope values
in parenthesis.
If this is still confusing we should probably print only the
numeric value.

Bernd

--On Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:26:22 +0100 Bernd Becker 
<bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I think you are right. We should not map the response_flags to
> sync_scope.
> The sync_scope defined in packet-giop.c obviously came from the
> following definition in Corba Messaging Quality of Service:
>
> typedef short SyncScope;
> const SyncScope SYNC_NONE = 0;
> const SyncScope SYNC_WITH_TRANSPORT = 1;
> const SyncScope SYNC_WITH_SERVER = 2;
> const SyncScope SYNC_WITH_TARGET = 3;
>
> We should leave the sync_scope value_string unchanged in case somebody
> implements the Messaging module, although that would probably be another
> plugin.
> We should either just display the numeric value for the response_flags
> or maybe display something more like a comment as in the spec, e.g.
>
> static const value_string response_flags[] = {
>     { 0x0, "SyncScope NONE or WITH_TRANSPORT" },
>     { 0x1, "SyncScope WITH_SERVER"},
>     { 0x3, "SyncScope WITH_TARGET"},
>     { 0, NULL}
> };
>
> I can supply a patch if you (and maybe others) agree.
>
> I don't really know if anybody has looked at the changes in the Corba 3.0
> Spec to see what has to be added/changed in packet-giop.c. Some additions
> were made regarding Service Contexts a short time ago.
>
> It might be better to ask such questions on the developer list, as I
> suspect that not many of the few giop developers check the users list. I
> will send this to the developers list.
>
> Regards,
> Bernd
>
> --On Monday, March 10, 2003 17:25:00 +0100 Nicolas.De_Montbel@xxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> > I am new on this tool which seems to be very convenient and complete
> > but I have a problem on decoding one giop request header (response
> > flags).
> >
> > from CORBA3.0 specification :
> > "response_flags is set to 0x0 for a SyncScope of NONE and
> > WITH_TRANSPORT. The flag is set to 0x1 for a SyncScope of
> > WITH_SERVER. A non exception reply to a request message containing a
> > response_flags value of 0x1 should contain an empty body, i.e. the
> > equivalent of
> > a void operation with no out/inout parameters. The flag is set to 0x3 for
> > a SyncScope of WITH_TARGET. These values ensure interworking
> > compatibility between this and previous versions of GIOP."
> > In packet-giop.c :
> >         static const value_string sync_scope[] = {
> >               { 0x0, "SYNC_NONE" },
> >               { 0x1, "SYNC_WITH_TRANSPORT"},
> >               { 0x2, "SYNC_WITH_SERVER"},
> >               { 0x3, "SYNC_WITH_TARGET"},
> >               { 0, NULL}};
> >
> > This is quite different.
> >
> > Can you confirm that
> > and say to me how can I correct that in Ethereal
> > sincerly
> >
> > Nicolas de Montbel

Attachment: packet-giop.patch
Description: Binary data