On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Stig (and Sake),
>
> 2017-08-02 22:24 GMT+02:00 Stig Bjørlykke <s...@bjorlykke.org>:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev
>> <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote:
>> > Regarding tcp.payload, I don't think tcp.payload in itself has any
>> problems. I think the issue lies in tcp showing a length of 32 only, even
>> though it has tcp.payload as its child.
>>
>> The tcp.payload field was recently added, have a look at
>> https://code.wireshark.org/review/22374
>>
>> I do agree that this is displayed wrong and should be fixed.
>> Increasing the length of the TCP header would be wrong because the
>> payload is dissected by upper protocols and does belong with the TCP
>> header.  Putting it at top level would also be wrong because it's not
>> a protocol.
>>
>
> What about marking it as PROTO_ITEM_SET_GENERATED() as a first step? Tis
> value is inferred from the tvb length and not a real field.
>
tcp.payload is not really GENERATED... (for me)

>
> Regards,
> Pascal.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> _______________
> 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

Reply via email to