I dont think composite tvbs actually work. or at least they didnt work when we originally wrote the reassembly code.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a tangential issue that has always confused me. > > Why do we malloc+memcpy data for reassembly when we already have > 'virtual' composite TVBs? > > Wouldn't it be more efficient (in time and memory) to create a > composite TVB for each reassembly and then build the reassembled > packet in it? You would never have to copy or allocate any actual > packet data... > > Or am I misunderstanding how composite TVBs actually work? > > Thanks, > Evan > > P.S. Clearly some protocols where the payload is XORed or hashed > wouldn't be able to do this, but most protocols doing reassembly just > carry the raw payload bytes. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
