Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Addressing FT_ types
From: mmann78 () netscape net
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 23:13:50 -0500
Ok, so I'm trying to go down the route of adding different "BASE" types for FT_BYTES. I thought it would be fairly straightforward, but the problem I'm running into is that fvalue_to_string_repr() never gets the "BASE" value so I can distinguish between BASE_NONE, BASE_DOT and BASE_DASH. Could it be as simple as just adding another parameter to fvalue_to_string_repr? Grepping where fvalue_to_string_repr is used seems to indicate that not all calls to it will have "BASE" value available. Wanted to ask for guidance before I go down some errant rabbit holes (or just not completely understand all of the uses of fvalue_to_string_repr). -----Original Message----- From: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com> To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 4:47 am Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Addressing FT_ types On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com> wrote: Le 29 déc. 2014 16:59, <mmann78 () netscape net> a écrit :
I was looking to add an FT_ enumeration for Fibre Channel addresses. See https://code.wireshark.org/review/6098/ for my attempt. Because the Fibre Channel address already had an "address type" (AT_FC), I thought a corresponding FT_ was appropriate. That seems to be how many of the "address types" are turned into field types. The review comments so far suggest that maybe an FT_ enumeration isn't the way to go, so I thought I'd pose the question to -dev. A Fibre Channel address is a 3 byte value, displayed with a decimal between each byte, displayed as hex values (ie ff.ff.ff). It does not have a "name resolution" component (like IP or Ethernet addresses). So if you're creating an hf_ item for it, I believe any of the following could be the way to represent it. 1. FT_FC, BASE_NONE (current approach) 2a. FT_UINT24, BASE_DOT (Suggestion that BASE_DOT would but a decimal between each byte value). proto_tree_add_item using the hf_ field would need a ENC_BIG_ENDIAN parameter. 2b. FT_UINT24, BASE_HEX|BASE_DOT (to ensure bytes are represented as hexadecimal. So an IPv4 address could be considered FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC|BASE_DOT if not for the name resolution) 3. FT_BYTES, BASE_DOT (perhaps other address types could just be different "punctuation" BASEs between their byte values) I'm looking for the "best", or at least "most consistent" approach. I also don't mind taking the time to change other existing methods to be able to identify/keep that consistency. Big picture is trying to cleanup address_to_str functionality as some of the comments in the code suggest.
Hi, On my side I like option 3. Hi, For me, don't add a new FT_ type if there is no "resolve functions" (like resolve name for IPv4/IPv6/ Ethernet/EUI64...) I like the option 3 too (add also BASE_DASH...) 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
___________________________________________________________________________ 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:
- Re: Addressing FT_ types mmann78 (Jan 01)