Re: [Wireshark-dev] extcap grammar for checkbox treeview
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Michal Labedzki wrote: > Ok, so it is only additional filtering on specified interface. It is fine. > > By the way: do you have a plan to add some extcap tool or support into > libpcap for usbpcap? It will be fine if user will have USB sniffing on > Windows by defaults (out-of-box). The whole reason for this topic and submitted code review is that I am implementing extcap interface for USBPcap. :-) It will be available in next USBPcap release. It could be bundled with Wireshark installer sometime in the future (atleast that's the plan). ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] extcap grammar for checkbox treeview
Ok, so it is only additional filtering on specified interface. It is fine. By the way: do you have a plan to add some extcap tool or support into libpcap for usbpcap? It will be fine if user will have USB sniffing on Windows by defaults (out-of-box). On 22 September 2014 09:18, Tomasz Moń wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Michal Labedzki > wrote: >> It seems that you try to move some interfaces from interfaces list to >> one of interface. Why do not you add as much interfaces as you need? >> It seems to be similar case with Android: There is one devices (phone) >> connected by USB to computer. Instead of adding one devices as >> interfaces for "sniffing" I add five interfaces (logcat main, logcat >> events, logcat system, logcat radio, bluedroid*). > > No, I am not. On my laptop I have 7 USBPcap control devices (or on > Linux, 7 usbmon interfaces). This is not going to change, there'll > still be 7 USBPcap interfaces in the interface list in case of my > system. The change allows finer control for user regarding which > devices he wants to filter within selected USB Root Hub. > >> I am not sure that hiding interfaces into options is good idea... >> however it is better then hundreds of interfaces in main list :) > > I think it's the way to go for USBPcap. Currently it either captures > complete traffic on selected USB Root Hub or nothing (pretty much just > like usbmon works on Linux). USBPcap creates one control device per > USB Root Hub and it's exclusive access. > ___ > Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list > Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Pozdrawiam / Best regards - Michał Łabędzki, Software Engineer Tieto Corporation Product Development Services http://www.tieto.com / http://www.tieto.pl --- ASCII: Michal Labedzki location: Swobodna 1 Street, 50-088 Wrocław, Poland room: 5.01 (desk next to 5.08) --- Please note: The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorised use, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank You. --- Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. --- Tieto Poland spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością z siedzibą w Szczecinie, ul. Malczewskiego 26. Zarejestrowana w Sądzie Rejonowym Szczecin-Centrum w Szczecinie, XIII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego pod numerem 124858. NIP: 8542085557. REGON: 812023656. Kapitał zakładowy: 4 271500 PLN ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] extcap grammar for checkbox treeview
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Michal Labedzki wrote: > It seems that you try to move some interfaces from interfaces list to > one of interface. Why do not you add as much interfaces as you need? > It seems to be similar case with Android: There is one devices (phone) > connected by USB to computer. Instead of adding one devices as > interfaces for "sniffing" I add five interfaces (logcat main, logcat > events, logcat system, logcat radio, bluedroid*). No, I am not. On my laptop I have 7 USBPcap control devices (or on Linux, 7 usbmon interfaces). This is not going to change, there'll still be 7 USBPcap interfaces in the interface list in case of my system. The change allows finer control for user regarding which devices he wants to filter within selected USB Root Hub. > I am not sure that hiding interfaces into options is good idea... > however it is better then hundreds of interfaces in main list :) I think it's the way to go for USBPcap. Currently it either captures complete traffic on selected USB Root Hub or nothing (pretty much just like usbmon works on Linux). USBPcap creates one control device per USB Root Hub and it's exclusive access. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] extcap grammar for checkbox treeview
Hello Tomasz, Thanks for this patch, but I have a question: It seems that you try to move some interfaces from interfaces list to one of interface. Why do not you add as much interfaces as you need? It seems to be similar case with Android: There is one devices (phone) connected by USB to computer. Instead of adding one devices as interfaces for "sniffing" I add five interfaces (logcat main, logcat events, logcat system, logcat radio, bluedroid*). I am not sure that hiding interfaces into options is good idea... however it is better then hundreds of interfaces in main list :) On 19 September 2014 20:55, Tomasz Moń wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Tomasz Moń wrote: >> Is there anything like checkbox treeview currently in the works? Or >> could Mr. Someone propose a grammar for that and/or handle the >> implementation? > > Never fear, Mr. Someone is here! > > Multicheck was nearly exactly was I needed. I have just submitted > changes for multicheck to make it suitable for USBPcap for review: > https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/4192/ > ___ > Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list > Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Pozdrawiam / Best regards - Michał Łabędzki, Software Engineer Tieto Corporation Product Development Services http://www.tieto.com / http://www.tieto.pl --- ASCII: Michal Labedzki location: Swobodna 1 Street, 50-088 Wrocław, Poland room: 5.01 (desk next to 5.08) --- Please note: The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorised use, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank You. --- Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. --- Tieto Poland spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością z siedzibą w Szczecinie, ul. Malczewskiego 26. Zarejestrowana w Sądzie Rejonowym Szczecin-Centrum w Szczecinie, XIII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego pod numerem 124858. NIP: 8542085557. REGON: 812023656. Kapitał zakładowy: 4 271500 PLN ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] extcap grammar for checkbox treeview
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Tomasz Moń wrote: > Is there anything like checkbox treeview currently in the works? Or > could Mr. Someone propose a grammar for that and/or handle the > implementation? Never fear, Mr. Someone is here! Multicheck was nearly exactly was I needed. I have just submitted changes for multicheck to make it suitable for USBPcap for review: https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/4192/ ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
