https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13202
--- Comment #12 from Chuck Lever <chuck.le...@oracle.com> --- (In reply to Parav Pandit from comment #11) > (In reply to Chuck Lever from comment #8) > > Just as a data point, I applied the packet-infiniband.c diff from change > > 19107 on top of my tree with conversation logic removed from > > packet-rpcrdma.c. It does not change the behavior of the RPC dissector. > > > Sorry, I didn't follow. Do you see them as Infiniband frames or as > RPC/PortMap/NFS frames after applying my patch? > > With the pcap trace of bug 13213, with my change 19107 I am able to see them > as NFS/RPC frames. Before changing anything, only the raw InfiniBand traffic appeared. After removing the find_or_create_conversation() call site from packet-rpcrdma.c as 19107 does, RPC Calls were properly decoded as NFS requests, but RPC Replies appeared as "RPC ### V0 proc-0 Reply". This means the RPC dissector was not able to match the XID of each Reply to a previous Call message. Though this is still broken, this is the until-now normal behavior for RPC-over-RDMA, up until the "remove duplicate conversations from packet-infiniband.c" patch. In a capture of NFS on IPoIB or NFS on TCP, you will see the proper expected way NFS Replies are supposed to appear. After I applied the packet-infiniband.c hunk of 19107, nothing changed. Thus my humble conclusion is that the packet-rpcrdma.c hunk of 19107 is the part that fixes the regression introduced by "remove duplication conversations" . The packet-infiniband.c hunk does not appear to change the behavior of either the RPC or RPC-over-RDMA dissector. > > I've filed bug 13213 to separately document the RPC reply dissection > > failure. I'll attach my fix to 13213, and we can compare and discuss both approaches. I see why fixing packet-infiniband.c might affect more ULP dissectors, and thus it might be a more broad fix. Getting PT_IBQP and PT_TCP conversations to behave more alike is probably a desirable long-term goal. But 19107 is either not quite right, or somehow it is not enough for RPC. (Probably the latter). It may be that the packet-infiniband.c hunk of 19107 is still appropriate to apply. I just wanted to note, however, that change by itself does not appear to address either 13202 or 13213 (unless I've done something wrong). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-bugs mailing list <wireshark-bugs@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
