[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #42 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to Jaap Keuter from comment #41) > This seems to be complete, closing bug. The two remaining cases were the Cisco FabricPath MiM dissector and the EPON dissector. The Cisco FabricPath MiM dissector (packet-cisco-fp-mim.c) now uses ether_withoutfcs; as a comment in that file says: /* * The FCS in FabricPath frames covers the entire FabricPath frame, * not the encapsulated Ethernet frame, so we don't want to treat * the encapsulated frame as if it had an FCS. */ The EPON dissector (packet-upon.c) now uses eth_maybefcs; I checked the email about the assignment of LINKTYPE_EPON and the result was that it's like LINKTYPE_ETHERNET - maybe it has an FCS, maybe it doesn't. (With pcapng that information could be supplied with packet block/enhanced packet block options.) So, yeah, done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 Jaap Keuter changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #41 from Jaap Keuter --- This seems to be complete, closing bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 Sven Eckelmann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sven+wiresh...@narfation.or ||g --- Comment #40 from Sven Eckelmann --- (In reply to Guy Harris from comment #30) > (In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #0) > > 2) The B.A.T.M.A.N. dissectors, in packet-batadv.c: I have no idea what this > > protocol is. [...] > is really sketchy, but it appears that the frames don't include an FCS - not > surprising, as they're transmitted at layer 2, probably on LANs that provide > their own FCS. Sorry for the really late reply but someone just pointed me to this bug. It is correct that FCS is not part of the frames transported by batman-adv. Thus the change to "eth_withoutfcs" by Guy Harris seems to be correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #39 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 15388 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Separate "Ethernet in capture file" and "Ethernet maybe with FCS" dissectors. https://code.wireshark.org/review/15388 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 Guy Harris changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #38 from Guy Harris --- Again, still open pending doing something about the Cisco FabricPath MiM dissector and the EPON dissector. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #37 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 15384 merged by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/15384 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 Gerrit Code Review changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #36 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 15384 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/15384 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #35 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 15382 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Have the "maybe an FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector take a data argument. https://code.wireshark.org/review/15382 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #34 from Guy Harris --- Still open pending doing something about the Cisco FabricPath MiM dissector and the EPON dissector. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #33 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #2) > The tricky thing with that is we'll break any Lua script that called that > dissector before... though arguably they probably shouldn't have been, for > the same reasons as the bug. But I know some scripts do call it today. > > Also, how do external third-party plugins call dissectors? If it's through > the name lookup method then same problem for them. (though we don't seem to > care as much about plugin compatibility :) The chances are extremely good that any Lua or C dissector calling the "eth" dissector really should be calling the "eth_withfcs" or "eth_withoutfcs" dissectors, given how few dissectors remain that call the "eth" dissector (and my goal is to reduce that number to 1, i.e. the ATM dissector). If they were changed to do so, they'll still work with versions of Wireshark dating back at least as far as 1.12, and possibly older. So I've renamed the "eth" dissector to "eth_maybefcs", to make developers notice that there's no such thing as the "Ethernet" dissector and that they need to figure out *which* Ethernet dissector to call. That dissector takes no additional data argument. There's another dissector, called *only* for Ethernet packets in a capture file, where it's passed a pointer to a "struct eth_phdr" that indicates whether it's known that there is an FCS, known that there isn't an FCS, or unknown whether there's an FCS or not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #32 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13382 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Have the "maybe an FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector take a data argument. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13382 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 Guy Harris changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED |--- Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #31 from Guy Harris --- At this point, the only dissectors still using the "eth" dissector are: the ATM dissector, for VC-encapsulated Ethernet, where we really *don't* know whether there's an FCS or not; the Cisco FabricPath MiM dissector, where some more work is necessary - this dissector is an override for dissection of Ethernet frames with the FabricPath MiM Ethernet type, to dissect the addresses specially, and ideally the FCS should be handled by the regular Ethernet dissector, so we really need a better hook into the Ethernet dissector; the EPON dissector, which uses its own LINKTYPE_ value, so I need to ask the person who asked for the LINKTYPE_ value and submitted the dissector whether packets using that linotype should always have an FCS, never have an FCS, or do as LINKTYPE_ETHERNET does and have packets of both types. The first of those should use a "eth_maybefcs" dissector that does *NOT* look at the pseudo-header. The second of those needs work that will probably involve the Ethernet dissector making the "FCS or not" decision. The third of those needs clarification and perhaps its own pseudo-header in case any capture file formats *other* than pcap and pcapng offer EPON (or maybe the "FCS length" needs to be provided via a different path, given that pcapng can provide the FCS length). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #30 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #0) > 2) The B.A.T.M.A.N. dissectors, in packet-batadv.c: I have no idea what this > protocol is. It's the Better Approach To Mobile Adhoc Networking protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N. The documentation on their Wiki https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/open-mesh/wiki is really sketchy, but it appears that the frames don't include an FCS - not surprising, as they're transmitted at layer 2, probably on LANs that provide their own FCS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #29 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #0) > 3) The Arbor Networks E100 packet encapsulation dissector, in packet-e100.c. > I don't know whether their packet encap has the original FCS or not. At least in the sample capture attached to bug 3195, which was submitted by somebody from Arbor Networks, the encapsulated Ethernet frames don't include the FCS. So it should call the eth_withoutfcs dissector; I've fixed it to do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #25 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13364 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "without FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13364 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #27 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13365 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "without FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13365 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #24 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13363 merged by Guy Harris: Call the "without FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13363 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #28 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13365 merged by Guy Harris: Call the "without FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13365 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #23 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13363 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "without FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13363 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #22 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13354 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Dissect Ethernet-over-GFP frames with the "with the FCS" dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13354 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #21 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #0) > 4) Ethernet over Infiniband (EoIB) does it, but I believe there is no > Ethernet FCS/CRC when encap'ed over Infiniband. There's just the Infiniband > CRC after the Ethernet header and payload. A slide I found online somewhat suggests that there's no Ethernet FCS, and the capture attached to bug 5061 includes no Ethernet FCS, so I assume there isn't one. So it should call the eth_withoutfcs dissector; I've fixed it to do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #19 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13353 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13353 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #17 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13352 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13352 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #16 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13351 merged by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13351 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #18 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13352 merged by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13352 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #15 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13351 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13351 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #13 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13350 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13350 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 Gerrit Code Review changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #14 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13350 merged by Guy Harris: Call the "no FCS present" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13350 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #12 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #0) > 5) TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) does it, but it's > not clear if it should. If there is an Ethernet FCS, it will be for the > outer TRILL packet, not for the encapsulated Ethernet packet. (see RFC 6325) So it should call the eth_withoutfcs dissector; I've fixed it to do so. Its spec is a bit more emphatic about the inner Ethernet frame's FCS being discarded, so I didn't bother to check it against any TRILL packets. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #11 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13349 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Use the "no FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13349 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #10 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13348 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Use the "no FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13348 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #9 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13347 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Use the "no FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13347 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #8 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #0) > 6) Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) does it, and again like > TRILL it's not clear if it should, because the encapsulated Ethernet apcket > doesn't have an FCS, So it should call the eth_withoutfcs dissector; I've fixed it to do so (and checked it against a capture found on pcapr.org). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #7 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13345 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Use the "no FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13345 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #6 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13344 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Use the "no FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13344 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #5 from Gerrit Code Review --- Change 13343 had a related patch set uploaded by Guy Harris: Use the "no FCS" version of the Ethernet dissector. https://code.wireshark.org/review/13343 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #4 from Guy Harris --- (In reply to comment #3) > Also, aren't there really 4 cases? > 1) When you know it does not have an FCS. > 2) When you know it does have an FCS. > 3) When you don't know, and the ethernet dissector should check the > pseudo-header. > 4) When you don't know and ethernet should NOT check the pseudo-header. Perhaps we need 3) When you don't know, and the Ethernet dissector should check a data structure pointed to by its "data" argument replacing both 3) and 4). In fact, perhaps an Ethernet pseudo-header data structure should be the data structure in question, whether it's the one in the wtap_pkthdr structure (if the "don't know" Ethernet dissector is called directly from the frame dissector) or a private one filled in by the caller (if the "don't know" Ethernet dissector is being called from some other dissector). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #3 from Hadriel Kaplan --- Also, aren't there really 4 cases? 1) When you know it does not have an FCS. 2) When you know it does have an FCS. 3) When you don't know, and the ethernet dissector should check the pseudo-header. 4) When you don't know and ethernet should NOT check the pseudo-header. Because right now if you disable the assume_fcs pref, dissect_eth_maybefcs() checks the pseudo-header. If you enable the assume_fcs pref, then it knows there're 4 bytes. There's no way to not know and not have it check the pseudo-header. Actually maybe what we need is a pref for assume_no_fcs, or change assume_fcs to be an enum of yes-no-not type thing? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #2 from Hadriel Kaplan --- The tricky thing with that is we'll break any Lua script that called that dissector before... though arguably they probably shouldn't have been, for the same reasons as the bug. But I know some scripts do call it today. Also, how do external third-party plugins call dissectors? If it's through the name lookup method then same problem for them. (though we don't seem to care as much about plugin compatibility :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 Guy Harris changed: What|Removed |Added Hardware|x86 |All -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 9933] Questionable calling of ethernet dissector by encapsulating protocol dissectors
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9933 --- Comment #1 from Guy Harris --- While we're at it, let's rename the "eth" dissector to "eth_maybefcs", to make it clear that there's no "Ethernet" dissector, there are 3 - one to use when you know the frame includes the FCS, one to use when you know the frame doesn't include the FCS, and one to use where it might or might not, depending on the capture file type and, in some cases, depending on the capture mechanism and the device driver. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-bugs mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
