Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
From: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:03:12 +0200
Hi Michael,
Good topic !my idea is to create a proto_tree_add_checksum and pass in arg : checksum, chucksum_computed, hf_..._cheskum, hf_..._good, hf_..._bad, ei_...checksum...)
Regards,
Regards,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:13 PM, <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I logged something into Bugzilla for now (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8859) if anyone has any other thoughts. I have too many other half-completed "ideas" resulting in too many changed files to tackle this now in one swoop.As for the coloring rule, thanks for the heads up, but I think I should be able to update them accordingly, possibly using the "expert info" (display) filter instead of the pure dissector display filter.-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx>
To: wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
<mmann78@...> writes: > Perhaps all checksum validations could be an enumeration of > "-1" (or "2"?) - unknown/disabled > "0" - good > "1" - bad The TCP dissector does something similar for the window scaling factor. If the 3-way handshake isn't captured, then the scaling factor is unknown and set to -1. So, there is some precedence at indicating unknown values using -1, and if changes are to be made, then -1 would be my vote. > If we're already going to take a hit with changed display filter names in the name of consistency, why not go all the way? I like consistency, so it's fine by me. Just my 2 cents though. Removing the bad_checksums does have at least 1 drawback though, and that's that several of them are used in default coloring rules, so if they're removed, users will likely end up with several warnings of the form: Warn Could not compile color filter "Checksum Errors" from saved filters: "<protocol>.checksum_bad" is neither a field nor a protocol name. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
- From: mmann78
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
- Prev by Date: [Wireshark-dev] BUg report
- Next by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] BUg report
- Next by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
- Index(es):