On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> So that means that either the IP protocol rider protocol, or the custom
> protocol, needs to have a field giving the protocol number of the protocol
> that runs top the custom protocol.  Which of of them has that field?
>

The IP Rider contains that field.


> > I overcame the problem of the protocols not matching by seeing that the
> protocol number copied over from IP to my IP rider and *supposedly* stored
> in hf_[IPR protocol] field was incorrect.  It was 65,000 something when
> printf'd.  What does hf_register_info do with that variable (hf_[IPR
> protocol])?
>
> What do you mean by "hf_[IPR protocol]"?
>

Sorry, I wasn't especially clear.  I meant one of the variables declared as:
static int hf_IPR_protocol = -1;
that is used in the hf_register_info struct.  I didn't know what those were
for (I thought they stored the actual value extracted from the packet), but
you answered my question with:


> the hf_ values set by proto_register_field_array(), are used as indices
> into a big table of structures giving information about protocols and
> fields.  Those indices are passed to various routines that add items to
> protocol trees, as well as some other routines.



If this is still the wrong format (calling dissector_try_port twice or
otherwise), please let me know!  Otherwise, here comes another question.  I
solved the problem exhibited in:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5582/malformed.gif
by hardcoding a value into the reported_length parameter of tvb_new_subset()
instead of using -1.  This is obviously not a long term solution, so what I
need to get at is the IP header's value for "Total Length" (ip.len).  Is
there a function for that?

Thank you,
Scott
___________________________________________________________________________
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-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to