https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/9688 has been
merged.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:11 PM Martin Mathieson <
martin.r.mathie...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Have changed the file name (compromise: file-pcapng-darwin.c).
>
> There are some Darwin-related options for the Enhanced
Have changed the file name (compromise: file-pcapng-darwin.c).
There are some Darwin-related options for the Enhanced Packet Block type,
that I didn't try to move to file-pcapng-darwin.c. Is it likely to be
common for local packet block definitions to also have options for Enhanced
Packet Block (
Yes, if there are likely no other similar types.
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 16:56 chuck c, wrote:
> file-pcapng_darwin_process_event.c
>
> I guess it's not as bad as the filenames with a "+" in the names, but
> would file-darwin.c be enough?
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:48 AM Martin Mathieson via Wire
file-pcapng_darwin_process_event.c
I guess it's not as bad as the filenames with a "+" in the names, but would
file-darwin.c be enough?
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:48 AM Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <
wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote:
> Please see https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/m
Please see https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/9688
I have yet to port my (genuinely) local block type, but would like to see
if this approach looks OK.
More thought might be needed to stay safe while dealing with block types
that don't have options.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 7:25 AM Guy Harris wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 12:58 AM, Joakim wrote:
>
> > if you manage to add a dissector table that would be great! I believe my
> company too will implement non-standard blocks so it would be very
> convenient to have it available.
>
> Note that what'
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 7:05 AM Guy Harris wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2023, at 3:19 PM, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <
> wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote:
>
> > I have 5 non-standardised/local block types that are in-use within my
> company, that are in the 'local' range 0x8000-0x.
>
On Feb 1, 2023, at 12:58 AM, Joakim wrote:
> if you manage to add a dissector table that would be great! I believe my
> company too will implement non-standard blocks so it would be very convenient
> to have it available.
Note that what's being discussed here would *only* handle dissecting the
On Jan 28, 2023, at 3:19 PM, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev
wrote:
> I have 5 non-standardised/local block types that are in-use within my
> company, that are in the 'local' range 0x8000-0x.
>
> My first thought was to add a dissector table (pcapng.block-types ?) by
> 'Block
I am aiming to try, maybe this weekend. My plan is to leave the 'darwin
process' type in file-pcapng.c but make it register in the table, and also
convert and move to a separate file one that I've written for the most
complicated example (i.e. involves options) that I have.
Regards,
Martin
On We
Hi,
if you manage to add a dissector table that would be great! I believe my
company too will implement non-standard blocks so it would be very
convenient to have it available.
//Joakim
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 at 00:19, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <
wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote:
> I ha
I have 5 non-standardised/local block types that are in-use within my
company, that are in the 'local' range 0x8000-0x.
My first thought was to add a dissector table (pcapng.block-types ?) by
'Block Type Code' in file-pcapng.c, then have dissectors register by adding
themselves to the
12 matches
Mail list logo
