Hi, That was how UNISTIM (a plugin) won. <grin> I ended up making its port configurable so it was the user who would make the final selection.
Thanx, Jaap Bill Meier wrote: > Jeff Morriss wrote: >>> Q1: Can anyone suggest the appropriate resolution of these conflicts ? >> Does that (the registration loss + memory leak) still happen if the >> dissectors are "new style"? I would think that converting them to "new >> style" dissectors "should" be the answer but I didn't look into it. > > Having dug a bit further into the three protocols I'm inclined to just > do a dissector_add_handle in the airopeek & cpfi dissectors leaving only > the tapa dissector registered on port 5000. > > 1. Currently it appears that the airopeek dissector can already only be > accessed via decode-as. > > 2. It also appears that the cpfi dissector can currently only be > accessed via decode-as (or by changing cpfi port preference). > > > In any case: > > Two of the dissectors (cpfi and tapa) are already new-style. > > The issue, unfortunately, is that currently all 3 dissectors explicitly > register themselves to udp port 5000 via dissector_add(). > > Since there's no checking in dissector_add for duplicate registrations > the net result is that the last dissector to register on udp port 5000 > wins with the previous registrations being obliterated. > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
