ANNOUNCEMENT: Live Wireshark University & Allegro Packets online APAC Wireshark Training Session
July 17th, 2024 | 10:00am-11:55am SGT (UTC+8) | Online

Ethereal-dev: RE: [ethereal-dev] yep, damnit... it's the linux kernel screwing with the packe

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: "Neulinger, Nathan R." <nneul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:56:58 -0600
I was thinking less robust - since there are not very many valid opcodes for
aarp at this point, just check both pletohs(pd[x]) and pd[x] against the
table. 

I agree, it's bad enough with the NFS stuff (where they have a significant
benefit of not moving a LOT of data around), but here, we're talking about
TWO BYTES! And they are copying it ANYWAY... Jeesh. 

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nneul@xxxxxxx
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Harris [mailto:guy@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:52 PM
> To: Neulinger, Nathan R.
> Cc: 'ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [ethereal-dev] yep, damnit... it's the linux kernel
> screwing with the packet dat a...
> 
> 
> > How annoying... Should ethereal do any handling of this, or 
> should we
> > consider it being broke, and not care?
> 
> Well, there might be some heuristics that could cope with it -
> unfortunately, we'd have to know whether the capture file came from a
> Linux system, and "we're running on Linux/not running on 
> Linux" doesn't
> necessarily correctly tell us that.
> 
> *I* consider the Linux mechanism broken - if you have a mechanism in
> your OS that purports to deliver raw copies of all packets sent
> from/received on your machine (or, if promiscuous, all packets on your
> network segment), I think it reasonable to expect that you'll get the
> raw data from those packets, exactly as they appeared on the wire.
> 
> If nothing else, they could perhaps do a copy-on-write on the 
> packet, so
> that the copy handed to the raw packet socket doesn't get 
> munged, and do
> so only if there *is* a raw packet socket.
>