Guy Harris wrote: > On Apr 28, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote: >>> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=32519 >>> >>> User: guy >>> Date: 2010/04/19 04:38 PM >>> >>> Log: >>> If that should truly "never happen", use DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED() >>> so it's more clearly marked as a dissector bug. >>> >>> (It apparently *does* happen - see bug 4698.) >> This has the randpkt test failing on the buildbot. > > ...which means that the RSVP dissector has, and had even before that checkin, > a bug, in that something that, according to a comment in the code, "should > never happen" can, in fact, happen with a bogus packet; this just makes the > bug more obvious. > >> Should it really be backported to 1.2.8? > > Clearly marking something that "should never happen" but does happen as a > dissector bug in the dissection is better than just putting a blob of > > Unknown session type > > into the protocol tree, so, yes, I'd backport it. > >> Or should the randpkt test accept dissector bugs as OK (like the fuzz >> testing)? > > The fuzz testing accepts dissector bug reports as OK? That seems like an > error to me.
So someone else thought too when they noticed it. So we turned it on for a while but then we got overwhelmed with bugs. See, for example, 3885, 3879, 3887, 3881. So then it got turned off again. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
