On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Evan Huus <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Guy, how are you finding these last four or five API abuses? Do you >> have some sort of super-checkAPIs or are you just doing a lot of >> manual code review? > > No, and not exactly. > > I have my regression script, which I was using to check whether I'd broken > anything with the X11 changes; it runs two versions of tshark against a file, > and compares the results. It runs against a big collection of captures, > including the menagerie used for fuzz testing. > > It *also* captures the standard error of tshark in both cases, and reports it > regardless of whether it's different or not, so it catches dissector bug > messages.
Hmm - should the fuzz script raise an error when it detects anything on stderr? We'd probably catch a lot of things that way. > I then do the code review on the dissectors that are issuing bug messages. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
