Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] capture_file* in dissector code

[Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:41 AM, mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

The ulterior motive is actually to reduce members in the packet_info* structure.  Some members could be converted to using p_get_proto_data/p_add_proto_data, but the "protocol ID" is required for that API.  While I've seen it hacked into a few places in the GUI, I think it's better design if only a dissector has access to that value.

Why? I think a few dissectors already share that value for determining the value of the parent protocol (since that is stored as a list of protocol IDs now) and I don't see any particular reason to restrict protocol IDs to just dissector code?

The idea is to have the dissectors themselves determine what gets presented in a "Decode As" by registering a "decode as structure".

I'm missing how this is related to removing items from pinfo.

 Something of a cross between the dissector_filter(.c) functionality an a UAT.  I also thought it could help qt development by providing the data "outside the GUI", reducing the effort there.  I'd like the decode_as_ok() (in decode_as_dlg.c) to just loop through an array to determine if there is something to "decode as".   As I've looked into it further, the problem is that decode_as_ok() uses dissectors and taps.  I was originally just focusing on the dissectors, but knew I needed the "decode as structure" to support a capture_file* in some capacity for the taps (and I've prefer to avoid an architecture that uses void* but the underlying functionality knows exactly what type of pointer it is), hence the post to -dev.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Nov 13, 2013 9:21 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] capture_file* in dissector code

What does "more generic" mean in this context?

On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:15 AM, mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I was looking at making the "Decode As" functionality more generic, but my current solution involves having dissectors handle a callback function that passes in a capture_file* as an argument.  Is that valid or does it cross library boundaries creating unwanted dependencies?

___________________________________________________________________________
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

___________________________________________________________________________
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

___________________________________________________________________________
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