Hi Matt, Thanks for your input, there's information about reporting bugs[1] and submitting patches[2] on the wiki.
[1]: http://wiki.wireshark.org/ReportingBugs [2]: http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/SubmittingPatches On 18 November 2014 16:37, Matt <matta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Find enclosed a fix for HEAD. > > % git diff --stat > epan/dissectors/packet-tcp.c | 8 +++++--- > epan/dissectors/packet-tcp.h | 5 ++--- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > 2014-11-18 15:54 GMT+01:00 Matt <matta...@gmail.com>: > > Thanks for the suggestion but relative seq nb is a really nice feature > > I use for plotting and analyzing data. If the TCP ISN can be 0 (I > > believe it can ?) then my report qualifies as a bug. The fix should be > > a ~10 lines patch with the expense of a boolean in tcp_analysis. I am > > willing to send a patch for it. > > > > 2014-11-17 18:41 GMT+01:00 ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlb...@gmail.com>: > >> You can just disable relative sequence numbers in the preferences for > tcp. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Matt <matta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I use wireshark to examinate some traces generated by a network > >>> simulator (ns3 www.nsnam.org) which set the ISN to 0 (no randomization > >>> yet). > >>> As wireshark assumes base_seq == 0 to be an unitialized value, it > >>> triggers some error as wireshark tries to set again and again the base > >>> seq. Here is the output of a single 3WHS (custom printf), in peculiar > >>> in the 4th line, which is the ACK of the 3WHS, wiresharks sets > >>> base_seq =seq-1, ie 0-1 and it wraps the seq number (ugly). > >>> > >>> Setting base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting rev base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting base seq to : 4294967295 > >>> Setting rev base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting rev base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting rev base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting rev base seq to : 0 > >>> Setting base seq to : 1 > >>> > >>> I understand it seems a corner case but I don't believe have an ISN > >>> equal to 0 is forbidden by the RFC ?! > >>> I was wondering if I could add some boolean such as "base_seq_set" in > >>> mptcp_info_t to prevent such a behavior. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Matt > > -- Graham Bloice
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
