Re: Using Google Protobuf to Export Full Packet Dissection Data via Named Pipe

[Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe () gmail com>]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Mark () verizon net <mlandri () verizon net> wrote:
> I was concerned about the c++ issue, which helped motivate the question.
>
> Only one object file requires c++. In fact, I'm still compiling my modified
> tshark in C. The required function in the c++ object file is callable from
> C.
>
> Pascal, do you think that this is still to much of a barrier?

I would say that it is a big barrier. You are also requiring us to
link in the C++ runtime and protobufs and all the libraries it wants
possibly including boost etc.

> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> 2017-07-11 16:07 GMT+02:00 Mark () verizon net <mlandri () verizon net>:
> > Thanks Roland!
> >
> > I guess I'm asking if it'd be value added for me to submit my protobuf
> > solution as an addition to current Wireshark dev branch. I've already
> > written the code. I'd just have to figure out how to incorporate it into the
> > Wireshark build process. It's written in c++ and requires pthread and
> > protobuf libs be installed.
>
>
> This is a first issue as all Wireshark code (except the Qt GUI) is written
> in C and this is not something we discussed changing so far.
>
> > Happy to do it but would be good to know beforehand if it'd be compatible
> > with Wireshark design ethos and if the community would see value in it.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jul 11, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Roland Knall <rknall () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > Did you take a look at tshark's -T parameter? "tshark -T jsonraw" for
> > instance, delivers full dissection in Json format. What would be needed is
> > only to shove that into a pipe to capture from some other place.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Roland
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Mark Landriscina <mlandri () verizon net>
> > wrote:
> > > Apologies in advance if this question is a bit long-ish.
> > >
> > > I've been wondering why Wireshark/tshark doesn't offer the option to
> > > export full packet dissection data via named pipe (serialized binary data).
> > > Is this due to design philosophy, lack of offers to write the code, or some
> > > other reason? Of course, packet dissection data can be written out to stdout
> > > or a file in xml format. Perhaps this meets most needs?
> > >
> > > Reason for the question is that I needed a dissection data export option
> > > that was more efficient than xml. My solution was to modify tshark so it can
> > > leverage Google Protocol Buffers to export packet dissection data as
> > > serialized binary data. Serialized dissection data is written out to a named
> > > pipe. Protobuf dissect tree creation, serialization, export code is all
> > > written in C++ and takes advantage of all the optimization work Google has
> > > put into its Protobuf library. The client/read side of the pipe can be
> > > written in any language supported by the Protobuf library. I wrote mine in
> > > Python. The client reads and parses the serialized dissection data (again)
> > > using Google Protobuf lib recreating dissection tree data on client side.
> > >
> > > Would it be advantageous to incorporate the above Protobuf approach into
> > > the Wireshark project or would the community consider it unnecessary or
> > > perhaps undesirable?
> > >
> > > If you're curious about implementation, you can see my project at the
> > > following location: https://gitlab.com/MLandriscina/protoShark.git. This is
> > > the first time that I've used Protobuf, so I wouldn't be surprised to
> > > discover that better implementations are possible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> > > Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> > > Unsubscribe: https://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
(何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操)
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe