Should all of these null checks be handled in one place (like
call_dissector_through_handle or something)?
Are there specific dissectors where it's valid for data to be NULL?
Even if there are, is it simply less work at this point to pass them a
pointer to an empty struct or some such thing?
Evan
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM, <cmaynard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=53895
>
> User: cmaynard
> Date: 2013/12/09 10:23 PM
>
> Log:
> Reject the packet if data is NULL without doing anything else.
>
> Note: We *might* want to do _something_ but that _something_ should be well-defined and consistent across all dissectors. Previously, some dissectors called proto_tree_add_text() to add some error message text to the tree, while others called DISSECTOR_ASSERT().
>
> Directory: /trunk/asn1/disp/
> Changes Path Action
> +4 -10 packet-disp-template.c Modified
>
> Directory: /trunk/epan/dissectors/
> Changes Path Action
> +7 -13 packet-disp.c Modified
> +8 -14 packet-dop.c Modified
> +8 -14 packet-dsp.c Modified
> +6 -3 packet-hci_usb.c Modified
> +8 -14 packet-p1.c Modified
> +12 -4 packet-pw-atm.c Modified
> +6 -3 packet-rfid-pn532-hci.c Modified
> +6 -3 packet-rfid-pn532.c Modified
> +7 -12 packet-ros.c Modified
> +7 -13 packet-rtse.c Modified
>
>
> (6 files not shown)
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-commits mailing list <wireshark-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-commits
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-commits
> mailto:wireshark-commits-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
