As someone that has actually studied the feasibility of making wireshark multithreaded and what would be required
"... Written with tons of globals variables, non thread safe, ..." There are some global variables in the bulk of the codebase, i.e. the dissectors. There is actually not that many of them, but that is an irrelevant point when it comes to multithreading. This is the least and the most insignificant of issues that prevents wireshark from being multithreaded. The real issues are that virtually all interesting protocols are very stateful which enforces a pure sequential scan and dissection of packets. While it would be theoretically possible to make wireshark multithreaded this would require a massive amount of work to identify all instances and all protocols (most of them) where you just have to manually track state and decide when dissection must pause and wait for previous packets to first be completely dissected before dissection can resume. Removing all global variables would be a small effort which would be interesting but pointless since this is not what prevents multithreading. Example : RPC protocols: In most RPC protocols it is impossible to even dissect reply packets at all unless you have first dissected and kept state remembered from when you dissected the previous request packet. While feasible it would be an enormous amount of work (but it would be possible). Most people such as myself have only single cpu hosts to build wireshark on which means the interest in working on adding multithreading (or being able to even test it) is minimal. I.e. global variable are not a problem, nor relevant. On 11/7/06, frederic heem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 06 November 2006 11:16 pm, Ulf Lamping wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Please do not confuse the bug that I may have introduced, and the > > > wireshark/glib bugs. > > > > THERE ARE NO WIRESHARK BUGS THAT YOU'VE FIXED (beside some very > > unimportant memory leaks)!!! > > > and some uninitialized variables, use of stale pointer and stale file > descriptor ... > They are not unimportant or important memory leak, they are all leaks that > needs to be fixed. > > There are "crashes" in the dumpcap code as you've not used it as > > designed. Then you've fixed the newly occuring problems at the wrong > > places. > A robust a software is a software that can be modified and enhanced without > collaping like a card castle. Wireshark is everything but robust. > > > > Randomly setting a pointer to NULL somewhere in the code and waiting for > > the program to crash would show exactly the same problems. > > > > I won't give you any further examples as I will only get in return that > > the WS code was badly designed before and there are bugs in other pieces > > of the code that needs to be fixed for your code to run. > > > I kindly ask you where are the bug you find, the only response is the > complain > about the some pointer has been tested, some pointer that has been set to > NULL after being freed ! > These are not bugs but is an effort to make wireshark more robust and less > error prone. What's wrong with that ? > > > > Where are the bugs you find that are not related to glib ? > > > Could you explain me why you treat the code as "buggy by design" ? Be > > > constructive and propose something better. > > > > I was constructive several times and only got the response that you > > disagree with my (and other core developers) points of view. > > > > > With "buggy by design" I mean that you seem to simply ignore how the > > code was written before, > > partially fix problems introduced by your own changes and then complain > > that the Wireshark code needs to be fixed. > > > Written with tons of globals variables, 2000 lines functions, non thread > safe, > pointer not tested, memory leak, uninitialized variables etc.... A weekly > update due to multiple vulnerabilities. > > I just don't want to spend any more time discussing on that level, > > > > Regards, ULFL > > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > --- NOTICE --- > > CONFIDENTIALITY - This email and any attachments are confidential and > are > intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message > by > mistake, please contact us immediately and then delete the message from > your > system. You must not copy, distribute, disclose or act upon the contents > of > this email. Thank you. > > PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (Law by Decree 30.06.2003 n. 196) - Personal > and > corporate data submitted will be used in a correct, transparent and > lawful > manner. The data collected will be processed in paper or computerized form > for > the performance of contractual and lawful obligations as well as for > the > effective management of business relationship. Data may be disclosed, in > Italy > or abroad, for the purpose above mentioned to third parties which > cooperate > with Telsey, agents, banks, factoring companies, credit recovering > companies, > credit insurance companies, professional and consultants, and > shipping > companies. In relation to the same purposes, data may be processed by > the > following classes of executors or processors: management; > administration > department; logistics and purchase department; sales department; post > sales > department quality department; R&D department; IT department; legal > department. > The data processor is Telsey S.p.A. The data subject may exercise all > the > rights set forth in art. 7 of Law by Decree 30.06.2003 n. 196 as reported > in > in the following link http://www.telsey.it/privacy.jsp. > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > 798t8RfNa6Dl8Ilf > _______________________________________________ > 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
