Yes, if there are likely no other similar types. On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 16:56 chuck c, <bubbas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> file-pcapng_darwin_process_event.c > > I guess it's not as bad as the filenames with a "+" in the names, but > would file-darwin.c be enough? > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:48 AM Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev < > wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote: > >> Please see https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/9688 >> >> I have yet to port my (genuinely) local block type, but would like to see >> if this approach looks OK. >> More thought might be needed to stay safe while dealing with block types >> that don't have options. >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:01 AM Martin Mathieson < >> martin.r.mathie...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 7:25 AM Guy Harris <ghar...@sonic.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 1, 2023, at 12:58 AM, Joakim <oak...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > if you manage to add a dissector table that would be great! I believe >>>> my company too will implement non-standard blocks so it would be very >>>> convenient to have it available. >>>> >>>> Note that what's being discussed here would *only* handle dissecting >>>> the non-standard blocks when you're dissecting the structure of the pcapng >>>> file the same way that we can dissect the structure of, for example, JPEG >>>> files; it won't affect the handling of the block in libwiretap nor will it >>>> affect the handling of it in libwireshark when you're reading a pcapng file >>>> as a capture file rather than as some type of file whose internal structure >>>> is to be dissected. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, for me - for now, I only want to check the block values that get >>> written into the pcapng file - another tool makes use of them. >>> >>> >>>> We already have a plugin mechanism in libwiretap for the first of those >>>> (although the interface could, I think, be improved; I'll look at some work >>>> I did on that) and a plugin mechanism in libwireshark (currently using the >>>> REC_TYPE_FT_SPECIFIC_{EVENT,REPORT} block type, but that might also be >>>> improved). >>>> >>>> However, you might want to look at implementing *custom* blocks, >>>> instead. If your company has a Private Enterprise Number: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Enterprise_Number >>>> >>>> it can use them, and would not have to worry about some other >>>> organization using the same block number that you use. >>>> >>> >>> We use 0x80000000 + <our-enterprise-number> for the first local block >>> type we have. >>> But we then also use the next 4 numbers for other private block types.. >>> I don't know if it was considered, but it would have been unnatural to >>> squeeze our 5 block types into a single type. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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
