Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] tools/check[hf|APIs|filtername].pl need updating?

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx>]

[For completeness of this thread] Peter took care of checkAPIs in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/29754/ .

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:03 AM Maynard, Chris <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone is waiting for my feedback, but just in case ...

I'm not against Jakub's changes.  There are benefits as he mentioned, particularly with the idea of auto-registration.  The current problem as I see it is that in its current state, the check*.pl tools won't catch problems (such as the one I illustrated) like they used to be able to do.

It would be great if all dissectors were converted to use the new API and then fields were auto-registered and  then all #ifndef HAVE_HFI_SECTION_INIT ... #endif blocks could be removed.  Of course that's a large task, so in the interim, maybe it's possible for the check*.pl tools to be updated to catch missing/duplicate/etc. entries in the hfi[] arrays?  Otherwise, the more dissectors that are written this way, the greater the chance of errors being introduced but not being caught by the tools.

Thoughts?
- Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michal Labedzki
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:39 AM
To: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>; Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] tools/check[hf|APIs|filtername].pl need updating?

I want to convert all Bluetooth dissectors to new proto tree API. Is it a good idea?

wt., 18 wrz 2018 o 18:23 Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>
napisał(a):
>
> Thanks Jakub for historic
>
> I think a good idea is revert to use "standard" API or write a tools
> for convert old dissector to new API...
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:05 PM Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> W dniu 2018-09-18 16:56, Maynard, Chris napisał(a):
>> > While investigating the transum-related crash, I had suspected some
>> > unregistered hf's and ran the various tools like checkhf.pl.  I
>> > then noticed that a number of dissectors seemed to have changed a
>> > bit from what I was used to before (...)
>>
>> These changes are quite old. For udp I did it in Aug 2013
>> (88eaebaedf2e19c493ea696f633463e4f2a9a757).
>>
>> some wireshark-dev threads:
>>   - https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201307/msg00222.html
>>   - thread continuation:
>> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201308/msg00035.html
>>
>> Nobody stopped me that time.
>>
>> > And I guess I missed the reasoning behind the restructuring, but
>> > what is the purpose/benefit of this restructuring
>>
>> To sum up:
>>
>> Restructuring idea was to remove usage of int hf_foo, so you would
>> need only to declare header_field_info hfi_foo (unfortunate, you
>> still need to do it on top of file).
>>
>> Benefit is no more ints, so:
>>   - proto_tree_ api checks if you passed header_field_info structure,
>>   - You don't need to declare int hf_foo = -1; (bonus: binary size
>> smaller 4 bytes per hf),
>>   - no need for table lookup in proto_tree_add_*
>>
>> > and use of HAVE_HFI_SECTION_INIT?
>>
>> Idea was that HFI_INIT(proto_bar) would put all protocol hfi's into
>> single binary section. This way wireshark could auto-register these
>> fields without need of some indirect array (bonus: binary size
>> smaller by sizeof(void *) per hfi).
>>
>>
>> After 5 years simple grep shows that only 36 dissectors are using
>> NEW_PROTO_TREE_API, so it seems that this API is not well known or
>> not liked.
>> If it makes problem I would suggest to drop it.
>>
>> Alexis suggested the same in 2015:
>> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201508/msg00087.html
>>
>>
>> Jakub.





















CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is the property of International Game Technology PLC and/or its subsidiaries and may contain proprietary, confidential or trade secret information.  This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe