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

Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 32519: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trun

From: Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:51:06 -0700
On Apr 28, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:

> guy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=32519
>> 
>> User: guy
>> Date: 2010/04/19 04:38 PM
>> 
>> Log:
>> If that should truly "never happen", use DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED()
>> so it's more clearly marked as a dissector bug.
>> 
>> (It apparently *does* happen - see bug 4698.)
> 
> This has the randpkt test failing on the buildbot.

...which means that the RSVP dissector has, and had even before that checkin, a bug, in that something that, according to a comment in the code, "should never happen" can, in fact, happen with a bogus packet; this just makes the bug more obvious.

> Should it really be backported to 1.2.8?

Clearly marking something that "should never happen" but does happen as a dissector bug in the dissection is better than just putting a blob of

	Unknown session type

into the protocol tree, so, yes, I'd backport it.

> Or should the randpkt test accept dissector bugs as OK (like the fuzz 
> testing)?

The fuzz testing accepts dissector bug reports as OK?  That seems like an error to me.