Make the limit high, to guard against infinite loops. Not too low, as if we were trying to impose some design on the dissector. So even a number like 10,000 is good. That will guard against infinite loops, and [hopefully] won't break a good dissector.
--gilbert On 8/22/06, Gerald Combs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would it make sense to place a maximum limit on the number of items in a > protocol tree? Right now, if a dissector tries to add a large number of > items to the tree (e.g. during an infinite loop) Wireshark will happily > oblige until the system runs out of memory. > > If so, what's a good number? 500? 1000? > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
