Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: The 'in' display filter operation
From: Hadriel Kaplan <the.real.hadriel () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:32:27 -0400
I believe just in the past month sometime, someone was talking about using the "{ }" braces in the display filter to indicate fields grouped in the same application-layer PDU. So that for example a filter like "{ foo && bar }" would only match true if foo and bar were both true in the same PDU, as opposed to just the same frame packet. (at least that's how I interpreted the emails, but I could be wrong) But personally I like your syntax's meaning better - probably because it looks like Lua. :) The only downside I can see is it means we're using up one of the few container-type token pairs left (the braces), for a feature that is just a convenience. I.e., a user can already do the logic of "x in {a, b, c}" today by doing "((x == a) or (x == b) or (x == c))". Whereas for something like PDU-based groupings there is no way to do today. Having said that... one could argue we could re-use braces for both use-cases, and disambiguate based on the 'in' token. Because my guess is the PDU-based grouping will also need to be more than simply "{ foo && bar }", but in fact something like "qux has {foo && bar}". (Where "qux" identifies the protocol name of the PDU layer which foo and bar need to both be true, as children somewhere under qux) -hadriel On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Jeffrey Smith <whydoubt () gmail com> wrote:
I decided to try my hand implementing the 'in' operator. I used the syntax 'x in {a,b,c}' (with commas). In code I created a set type that contains a GSList of stnode_t's. At the gencode layer, I effectively generate an OR-ed series of equality operations, but I cut out the redundant existence operations. The DFVM was untouched. After doing this, I ran across doc/README.display_filter which proposes various implementations for the 'in' operator. Also, it mentions this issue has been brought up at least as far back as 2004. So what are the current thoughts on this? Any significant reason that no implementation has made it in? It would be trivial for me to change to the 'x in {a b c}' syntax (no commas) if that is preferred. However, I have not done any work toward handling contiguous ranges and have no plans to at present. -- Thanks, -- Jeff Smith ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://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: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- The 'in' display filter operation Jeffrey Smith (Aug 22)
- Re: The 'in' display filter operation Hadriel Kaplan (Aug 23)