Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] master 7b7dd1e: Don't use -1 as the leng
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
From: Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:06:33 -0400
On 08/18/14 16:45, Evan Huus wrote:

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Aug 18, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Guy, how are you finding these last four or five API abuses? Do you
have some sort of super-checkAPIs or are you just doing a lot of
manual code review?


No, and not exactly.

I have my regression script, which I was using to check whether I'd broken anything with the X11 changes; it runs two versions of tshark against a file, and compares the results.  It runs against a big collection of captures, including the menagerie used for fuzz testing.

It *also* captures the standard error of tshark in both cases, and reports it regardless of whether it's different or not, so it catches dissector bug messages.


Hmm - should the fuzz script raise an error when it detects anything
on stderr? We'd probably catch a lot of things that way.
Given that I don't remember the last time I saw the buildbot waterfall show that the fuzz bot ran to completion I'd say that we shouldn't go doing that quite yet.
(There is a check for dissector bugs in the script but it's commented out; maybe it should be a command-line option so the buildbot can not do the check but developers can--e.g., when testing new code?)