Should all of these null checks be handled in one place (like call_dissector_through_handle or something)?
Are there specific dissectors where it's valid for data to be NULL? Even if there are, is it simply less work at this point to pass them a pointer to an empty struct or some such thing? Evan On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=53895 > > User: cmaynard > Date: 2013/12/09 10:23 PM > > Log: > Reject the packet if data is NULL without doing anything else. > > Note: We *might* want to do _something_ but that _something_ should be > well-defined and consistent across all dissectors. Previously, some > dissectors called proto_tree_add_text() to add some error message text to the > tree, while others called DISSECTOR_ASSERT(). > > Directory: /trunk/asn1/disp/ > Changes Path Action > +4 -10 packet-disp-template.c Modified > > Directory: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ > Changes Path Action > +7 -13 packet-disp.c Modified > +8 -14 packet-dop.c Modified > +8 -14 packet-dsp.c Modified > +6 -3 packet-hci_usb.c Modified > +8 -14 packet-p1.c Modified > +12 -4 packet-pw-atm.c Modified > +6 -3 packet-rfid-pn532-hci.c Modified > +6 -3 packet-rfid-pn532.c Modified > +7 -12 packet-ros.c Modified > +7 -13 packet-rtse.c Modified > > > (6 files not shown) > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-commits mailing list <[email protected]> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-commits > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-commits > > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
