wireshark-dev October 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > wireshark-dev archives
wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Seg Fault - Creating new wire

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Seg Fault - Creating new wiretap type - RESOLVED

From: Alex Lindberg <alindber_at_nospam>
Date: Sun Oct 24 2010 - 11:34:09 GMT
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>

Although the code complied, there was a missing header file. Adding the following resolved the issue.
#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H#include "config.h"#endifThanks as always.Alex Lindberg--- On Fri, 10/22/10, Alex Lindberg <alindber@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Alex Lindberg <alindber@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Seg Fault - Creating new wiretap type
To: "Developer support list for Wireshark" <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Date: Friday, October 22, 2010, 6:50 PM

I have uploaded a patch file and example C and H files to bugzilla that demonstrate the SEG Fault. I sure that I have overlooked something simple.
Bug 5333.
Thanks as always.Alex Lindberg
--- On Fri, 10/22/10, Stephen Fisher <steve@stephen-fisher.com> wrote:

From: Stephen Fisher <steve@stephen-fisher.com>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Seg Fault - Creating new wiretap type
To: "Developer support list for Wireshark" <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Date: Friday, October 22, 2010, 12:34 PM

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:42:34PM -0700, Alex Lindberg wrote:

> That was my thought, however I used a debugger and printf statements
> to watch the file handle passed to the wiretap routines. The file was
> the same in all cases. This has me stumped. It seems that my string
> buffer is not allowed during the file_gets routing. Perhaps making
> the buffer a const for the procedure, but that is not necessary in
> other modules.

It is strange. file_gets() is typically #define as gzgets() when
compiled with zlib. The return of gzgets() is the same as fgets()
(which is used when zlib isn't present) - a char *. I noticed that
you're using an unsigned char (guchar), but a test program I made
outside of Wireshark works fine with that too. Want to send a patch of
your changes so we can try it also?

___________________________________________________________________________
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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

___________________________________________________________________________
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