Hi Thomas,
2016-10-30 22:39 GMT+01:00 Thomas Wiens <th.wi...@gmx.de>:
> Hi,
> I'm working on a protocol where I want to use proto_tree_add_bitmask for
> a 64 Bit value.
> You can see the structure in the attached screenshot.
> This are my hf definitions (1st one is the header, the other ones are
> the fields):
>
> { &hf_s7commp_data_returnvalue,
> { "Return value", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue", FT_UINT64, BASE_HEX,
> NULL, 0x0,
> NULL, HFILL }},
>
> { &hf_s7commp_data_retval_errorcode,
> { "Error code", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.errorcode", FT_UINT64,
> BASE_HEX, NULL, 0x000000000000ffff,
> NULL, HFILL }},
> { &hf_s7commp_data_retval_omsline,
> { "OMS line", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.omsline", FT_UINT64, BASE_DEC,
> NULL, 0x00000000ffff0000,
> NULL, HFILL }},
> { &hf_s7commp_data_retval_errorsource,
> { "Error source", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.errorsource", FT_UINT64,
> BASE_HEX, NULL, 0x000000ff00000000,
> NULL, HFILL }},
> { &hf_s7commp_data_retval_genericerrorcode,
> { "Generic error code", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.genericerrorcode",
> FT_UINT64, BASE_HEX, NULL, 0x00007f0000000000,
> NULL, HFILL }},
> { &hf_s7commp_data_retval_servererror,
> { "Server error", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.servererror", FT_BOOLEAN,
> 64, NULL, 0x0000800000000000,
> NULL, HFILL }},
> { &hf_s7commp_data_retval_debuginfo,
> { "Debug info", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.debuginfo", FT_UINT64,
> BASE_HEX, NULL, 0x3fff000000000000,
> NULL, HFILL }},
> { &hf_s7commp_data_retval_errorextension,
> { "Error extension", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.errorextension",
> FT_BOOLEAN, 64, NULL, 0x4000000000000000,
> NULL, HFILL }},
>
> In general it works, but there are two problems:
>
> 1) It seems to be impossible to decode a value inside the bitmask as
> signed integer
>
> The "Error code" value should be 16 bit signed integer.
> I've tried all combinations, but I seems that this is really not possible.
> I always get a DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED from proto_tree_add_uint64().
>
When looking at proto_item_add_bitmask_tree() it looks like
proto_tree_add_uint64() is called both for FT_UINT64 and ft_INT64 (which
seems surprising, not to say wrong). Until this gets clarified, you might
get more success by manually creating the subtree and adding items, and
using the FT_INTXXtype when required.
>
> 2) Using value strings in a 64 bit bitmask aren't possible
>
> When I want to use a value_string for an entry inside the bitmask like
> VALS(errorcode_names) for example, wireshark crashes when I select a
> column.
> In the shown screenshot I've manually added the strings to the main item.
>
For 64 bits field, you must use the VALS64() macro and not the VALS() one.
See doc/README.dissector chapter 1.5:
"-- val64_string
val64_strings are like value_strings, except that the integer type
used is a guint64 (instead of guint32). Instead of using the VALS()
macro for the 'strings' field in the header_field_info struct array,
'VALS64()' is used."
>
> I could not simply split the bitmask into two 32 bit values, because the
> protocol I'm working on uses variable length encoding.
> Thus I'm decoding the value for myself, then calling
> proto_tree_add_bitmask_value and passing my own value to the function.
>
> I'm working under Windows 7 32 Bit, if this is a source of the problem.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> --
> Thomas
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> _______________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=
> unsubscribe
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
