-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Morriss
Sent: den 4 augusti 2014 15:58
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] The recent changes to proto.c appear to have broken things badly ...
On 08/03/14 23:32, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Bill Meier <wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Specifically:
>
> For some/many/all? dissectors, the protocol never appears in the
> 'protocol' column', isn't in the list of protos, filters for the
> protocol don't work. etc etc
>
> I guess something fails with respect to the
> proto_tree_add_item(..., proto_..., ...) call.
>
> Oddly enough, the actual dissection for the protocol does appear in
> the details pane.
>
> I believe the changes (5460d7f & 3da89d6) should be reverted until
> they are properly tested/fixed.
>
> (When i reverted these two commits to proto.c, things were OK again.
>
> Bill
>
>
> OK, yes, this is very strange.
>
> The result of that change should be only that we *don't* fake the tree
> item in certain uncommon cases - it certainly shouldn't be causing
> wider problems like this. My understanding is that we should be able to, e.g.
> randomly not fake the tree 10% of the time without causing problems as
> it is an optimization only, so I'm not sure why adding *any* extra
> condition at all would break things like this.
>
> Is TRY_TO_FAKE_THIS_ITEM ever more than an optimization? Does anyone
> else know why *not* faking the tree could cause problems?
I noticed this morning that I get warnings like:
> 09:11:52 Warn Dissector bug, protocol TCP, in packet 1: "Kind" - "tcp.option_kind" tfi->tree_type: 4294967295 invalid (../../epan/proto.c:3791)
> 09:47:37 Warn Dissector bug, protocol GTPv2, in packet 1: "Mobile Country Code (MCC)" - "e212.mcc" tfi->tree_type: 4294967295 invalid (../../epan/proto.c:3791)
If I back out the quoted changes the warnings go away.
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/3402/
also seems to fix the issue...
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
