Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0

[Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws () darkjames pl>]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 05:48:12PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> is it allowed to add an FT_BYTES hf entry with len==0 to the protocol
> tree?
>
> E.g. 
>
> proto_tree_add_bytes_format_value(tree, hf_myproto_myval,
>    tvb, offset, 0, NULL, format, ...)
>
> The idea would be to allow filtering for this element although it has no
> value (it's just there).
>
> When I do this, I run into an assert in proto_custom_set(),
>
>        case FT_BYTES:
>                 bytes = (guint8 *)fvalue_get(&finfo->value);
>                ... bytes_to_string(bytes, ...) -> DISSECTOR_ASSERT
>
>
> Who's at fault here: proto_custom_set() or the caller?

proto_item_fill_label() allows empty bytes:

5389     case FT_BYTES:
5390     case FT_UINT_BYTES:
5391             bytes = (guint8 *)fvalue_get(&fi->value);
5392             label_fill(label_str, 0, hfinfo,
5393                             (bytes) ? bytes_to_str(bytes, fvalue_length(&fi->value)) : "<MISSING>");
5394             break;

It'd be good to make them consistent, allow empty bytes (+1 from me) or assert in both place.

The check in proto_item_fill_label() is almost from begining (r1979).

Kuba.
___________________________________________________________________________
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