Re: [Wireshark-dev] Calculating CRC5 of 11-bit data

2019-07-19 Thread Tomasz Moń
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 2:01 AM Ross Jacobs wrote: > My vote is for table lookup along a one-byte boundary as all of the existing > CRC checkers in /wsutil currently use one. Notice how in our CRC16 and CRC32 > implementations, we bitshift by 8 and 24 respectively. It should be possible > to

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Calculating CRC5 of 11-bit data

2019-07-19 Thread Tomasz Moń
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 2:35 AM Guy Harris wrote: > On Jul 19, 2019, at 9:26 AM, Tomasz Moń wrote: > > 1. Compute the CRC5 bitwise on the 11 bits of data, or > > 2. Compute the CRC5 with table-based algorithm on 2 bytes (11 bits > > data + 5 bits CRC) and relying on the CRC properties expect

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Calculating CRC5 of 11-bit data

2019-07-19 Thread Guy Harris
On Jul 19, 2019, at 9:26 AM, Tomasz Moń wrote: > The CRC-5/USB is not so straightforward as it does not operate on the > byte boundary. The CRC-5/USB is calculated on 11 bits of data. I think > there are two possible approaches to check the CRC-5/USB in Wireshark: > 1. Compute the CRC5 bitwise

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Calculating CRC5 of 11-bit data

2019-07-19 Thread Ross Jacobs
Hi Tomasz, My vote is for table lookup along a one-byte boundary as all of the existing CRC checkers in /wsutil currently use one. Notice how in our CRC16 and CRC32 implementations, we bitshift by 8 and 24 respectively. It should be possible to compute any CRC along a one-byte boundary. This

Re: [Wireshark-dev] “bytes on wire” vs. “bytes captured”

2019-07-19 Thread Guy Harris
On Jul 19, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Jasper Bongertz wrote: > so if I get this right you expect to end up with a frame where length of the > original > content is less than what ends up in the pcap because meta data is added? This > usually happens by adding a trailer to the Ethernet frame, Not

Re: [Wireshark-dev] “bytes on wire” vs. “bytes captured”

2019-07-19 Thread Guy Harris
On Jul 19, 2019, at 5:52 AM, Holger Pfrommer wrote: > Now my question: I would be very useful to use pcap’s caplen and len values > to report original packet length while a capture device adds additional data > to a frame, for example a header containing some more details about the frame >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] “bytes on wire” vs. “bytes captured”

2019-07-19 Thread Jasper Bongertz
Hi, so if I get this right you expect to end up with a frame where length of the original content is less than what ends up in the pcap because meta data is added? This usually happens by adding a trailer to the Ethernet frame, e.g. some TAPs do that to add high precision timestamps and other

[Wireshark-dev] Calculating CRC5 of 11-bit data

2019-07-19 Thread Tomasz Moń
Hello, I am currently working on USB Link Layer dissector. It is supposed to be used with OpenVizsla FPGA-based USB hardware sniffer. USB Packets feature two CRC types: CRC-5/USB and CRC-16/USB. The CRC-16/USB is pretty straightforward. I have implemented it in [1] and it works fine with my

[Wireshark-dev] “bytes on wire” vs. “bytes captured”

2019-07-19 Thread Holger Pfrommer
Hi, I was wondering about a fact regarding the reported frame lengths in Wireshark. The frame dissector states “bytes on wire” and “bytes captured” values. I understand that these values where initially generated by the values caplen and len in the pcap packet header as follows: struct