> (On a somewhat separate note: I see that multiple registrations
> happen for udp and tcp port 0.
> I'm still looking at these to understand and to see if OK.)
I think this is used when there is no registered port for the protocol
And no reasonable default port can be given. Register to port zero
Still gives the possibility to do "decode as" and with a preference
The user who needs this protocol can give the port value used in that
environment. Heuristics may not be possible.
Regards
Anders
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] För Bill Meier
Skickat: den 24 augusti 2008 20:42
Till: Developer support list for Wireshark
Ämne: [Wireshark-dev] dissector_add: Multiple registrations to sameTCP/UDP
ports;
After adding a little validation code to dissector_add I've found that
there are currently at least two cases where multiple dissectors are
registered to the same non-zero tcp or udp port:
=====
udp.port: dsctr: cpfi; key 5000 already registered to: airopeek
udp.port: ddctr: tapa; key 5000 already registered to: cpfi
result:
cpfi & airopeak registrations lost (as well as a little memory leak)
=====
tcp.port: dsctr: tcpencap; key 10000 already registered to: ndmp
result:
ndmp registration lost ....
----------------------
Q1: Can anyone suggest the appropriate resolution of these conflicts ?
Q2: It seems reasonable to me to add code
to dissector_add and friends to validate the arguments:
handle != null
"pattern" (key) not already in the dissector table
Is this OK ? (If so, I'll add the code).
(On a somewhat separate note: I see that multiple registrations
happen for udp and tcp port 0.
I'm still looking at these to understand and to see if OK.)
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
