Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Hierarchy of fields & offsets again, more potential offenders

[Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Le 10 août 2017 10:56, "Stig Bjørlykke" <stig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What about marking it as PROTO_ITEM_SET_GENERATED() as a first step? Tis
> value is inferred from the tvb length and not a real field.

It's not a generated field (the bytes are fetched directly from the
packet without any modifications) so this would be wrong.

Right I missed the fact that we are also highlighting the payload in the bytes panel and not only indicating the length. So I agree it is not suitable.

I suppose Sake has a use case for the tcp.payload which may lead us to
a hint for how to mark such fields?
Because we may end up with udp.payload, ssl.payload, http.payload,
sctp.payload, tftp.payload, etc. and that would mess up a bit if we
don't handle them correct.  Right?

--
Stig Bjørlykke
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe