Hi folks, Sorry for hijacking the thread, but come to think of it, would it make more sense to test if it's >0, rather than testing for !=0?
Tyson. 2013/9/7 Martin Kaiser <li...@kaiser.cx> > Dear all, > > I stumbled on > > tvb_new_subset(tvb, 10, (tvb_get_guint8(tvb, 1) - 2), (tvb_get_guint8(tvb, > 1) - 2)); > > If tvb_get_guint8(tvb, 1)==0, we throw an exception because of > backing_length - that makes sense. > > As for reported_length<-1, it looks like that's ok when the tvb is > created. There'll be an exception when it's accessed, we'll always be > out of bounds. > > Is there a valid use case for reported_length<-1? > > Thanks, > Martin > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Fight Internet Censorship! http://www.eff.org http://vmlemon.wordpress.com | Twitter/FriendFeed/Skype: vmlemon | 00447934365844
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
