2015-02-17 12:41 GMT+01:00 yannick omnes <[email protected]>: > Hi Pascal, > > Thank you for your answer, > > The plugin crashes (dereferencing a NULL pointer) in the second iteration > of the loop in proto_register_field_array. Looking around, i noticed that > the bitmask field of header_field_info changed betwen 1.10.6 and 1.12.3, it > was a guint64 and is now a guint32. I didn't update my wireshark-dev > package (just noticed that) so that might be the problem. Where can I find > the dev package for wireshark 1.12.3 ? (The one provided by aptitude is > out-of-date) >
Hi Yannick, you can find the Wireshark 1.12.3 source code on this page: https://www.wireshark.org/download.html . It contains the full source tree, including the include files you might need to compile your plugin. Note that according to https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=wireshark-de, there is also a wheezy-backports repository that provides the wireshark-dev package for 1.12.1 which should be compatible with 1.12.3. As you noticed, it's always mandatory to recompile a plugin between major Wireshark releases as there is no guarantee that the internal API will be compatible (well let's say that it's guaranteed that it will NOT be compatible ;) ). > > Regards, > > Yannick > > > Le 17/02/2015 10:42, Pascal Quantin a écrit : > > 2015-02-17 10:08 GMT+01:00 yannick omnes <[email protected]>: > >> Hi list, >> >> I've recently updated my Wireshark to 1.12.3. I created a plugin that >> worked fine with previous versions but now I'm facing some problems. >> >> The plugins still compile and is correctly loaded by wireshark on Windows >> >> On my ubuntu 14.04, it is not loaded anymore. The problem seems to come >> from the register fonction. If there is only one element in the >> hf_register_info array, the plugin is being correctly loaded by Wireshark. >> But with more than one items, Wireshark crashes. >> >> Does anyone know what's wrong ? >> > > Hi Yannick, > > without having access to your code, it's almost impossible to provide > you support. Have you checked with a debugger where it fails more > precisely? What version were you using previously? > > Regards, > Pascal. > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe > <[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 >
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
