Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 32519: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trunk/epan/dissectors/: packet-rsvp.c

[Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>]

On Apr 28, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:

> guy () wireshark org wrote:
> > http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=32519
> >
> > User: guy
> > Date: 2010/04/19 04:38 PM
> >
> > Log:
> > If that should truly "never happen", use DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED()
> > so it's more clearly marked as a dissector bug.
> >
> > (It apparently *does* happen - see bug 4698.)
>
> This has the randpkt test failing on the buildbot.

...which means that the RSVP dissector has, and had even before that checkin, a bug, in that something that, according 
to a comment in the code, "should never happen" can, in fact, happen with a bogus packet; this just makes the bug more 
obvious.

> Should it really be backported to 1.2.8?

Clearly marking something that "should never happen" but does happen as a dissector bug in the dissection is better 
than just putting a blob of

        Unknown session type

into the protocol tree, so, yes, I'd backport it.

> Or should the randpkt test accept dissector bugs as OK (like the fuzz 
> testing)?

The fuzz testing accepts dissector bug reports as OK?  That seems like an error to me.
___________________________________________________________________________
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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe