Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: packet-ieee80211.c
From: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:09:27 +0200
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:30 AM, <mmann78 () netscape net> wrote:
(sorry about the previous email; trigger happy enter key) While trying to remove decode_numeric_bitfield() calls, I came across some curious code in packet-ieee80211.c. "hf_ieee80211_block_ack_control_multi_tid_info" and "hf_ieee80211_block_ack_control_compressed_tid_info" both use decode_numeric_bitfield() with a 16-bit mask, yet the proto_tree_add_uint_format() they're wrapped up in only specifies a length of 1 (byte). Within the hf_ array they are also listed as a FT_UINT16 type. Also there are a few other hf_ variables within the Multi-TID BlockAckReq and Multi-TID BlockAck handling that have proto_tree_add_* only specifying a length of 1, but the type is FT_UINT16 with a 16-bit mask. Should these even work?
Hi Michael, Yes, it is very strange ! (this code need so rework) This information about this fields have available here http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11n-2009.pdf Chapiter 7.2.1.8 BlockAck frame format Regards,
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- packet-ieee80211.c mmann78 (Sep 26)
- Re: packet-ieee80211.c mmann78 (Sep 26)
- Re: packet-ieee80211.c Alexis La Goutte (Sep 28)
- Re: packet-ieee80211.c mmann78 (Sep 26)