Hi,
After I applied this patch, the following is the test result.
When we made the name bigger than 2, we can not snmpwalk it.
I will look into it.
Zhuyj
user@ubuntu1004:~/net-snmp-5.7.2$ snmpwalk -v 2c -c NETMAN 127.0.0.1
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9 -Ofn
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9.0.25 = INTEGER: notReady(3)
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9.2.26 = INTEGER: notReady(3)
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9.3.25 = INTEGER: notReady(3)
user@ubuntu1004:~/net-snmp-5.7.2$ snmpset -v 2c -c NETMAN 127.0.0.1
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9.0.25.1 i 5
SNMP-TARGET-MIB::snmpTargetAddrRowStatus.'...' = INTEGER: createAndWait(5)
revo@ubuntu1004:~/net-snmp-5.7.2$ snmpwalk -v 2c -c NETMAN 127.0.0.1
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9 -Ofn
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9.0.25 = INTEGER: notReady(3)
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9.2.26 = INTEGER: notReady(3)
.1.3.6.1.6.3.12.1.2.1.9.3.25 = INTEGER: notReady(3)
On 07/10/2013 05:52 PM, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 17:41 +0800, zhuyj wrote:
>> On 07/10/2013 04:53 PM, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 10:34 +0800, zhuyj wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Attempting to create a new entry with a zero index fails silently.
>>> Ok, You want to index your entry with the string <NUL><EM>.
>>>
>>> The mess up is, just as usual, that people believes that <NUL> is a
>>> string terminator. That is wrong.
>>>
>>> Your idea of using \xff as a string terminator is, while not wrong (\xff
>>> is forbidden in utf-8 strings), confusing for a casual reader of the
>>> code.
>>>
>>> The correct solution is to store the length of the passed in octet
>>> sequence.
>>>
>>> A completely untested patch against master is attached.
>>>
>>> Does it help you?
>>>
>>> Note - the rename of name to nameData and get_addrForName to
>>> get_addrForName2 was to make it easier to find unconverted code.
>>>
>>> /MF
>> Hi,
>>
>> A little modifications:
>> Can we store name_len in octect sequence?
>> struct targetAddrTable_struct {
>> - char *name;
>> + char *nameData;
>> + unsigned char nameLen;
>> oid tDomain[MAX_OID_LEN];
>> int tDomainLen;
>> unsigned char *tAddress;
>>
>> I mean that we store nameLen in name[0]. Then we need not modify a lot
>> of source code.
> Wrong.
>
> One still have to modify all the source code that expects the name
> member to contain only the data and not the length.
>
>> Maybe it is better?
> I doubt it - less clear. The only way should be with some kind of
> "string class".
>
> /MF
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
