Hi,

I've been investigating a problem with transum, a post-dissector.  If you run 
tshark with transum it throws Access Violations.  I'm starting tshark with 
these arguments:

-2 -q -ta -o transum.tsumenabled:TRUE -T fields -E separator=, -E quote=d -E 
header=y -e frame.number -e _ws.col.Time -e ip.src -e ip.dst -e tcp.srcport -e 
tcp.dstport -e _ws.col.Info -r 
"C:\traces\Contoso_01\web01\web01_00001_20161012151754.pcap"

NB: The -2 flag indicates that tshark should make two passes.

The reason transum throws Access Violations is because the dissect_transum 
dissector is called on the first pass with a NULL proto_tree pointer.  I'll add 
defensive code to transum to avoid the Access Violation but there is an 
underlying problem.

It's normal for a dissector to be called with a NULL proto_tree pointer on the 
first pass *unless* a tap has been registered.  Transum registers a tap, and so 
when using Wireshark, each first-pass call to dissect_transum includes a 
pointer to a proto_tree.  With tshark, even though the tap is registered the 
proto_tree pointer is still NULL.

When running Wirehsark, the decision to create a proto_tree is made in cf_read 
of file.c with this code:

  /* Get the union of the flags for all tap listeners. */
  tap_flags = union_of_tap_listener_flags();
  create_proto_tree =
    (dfcode != NULL || have_filtering_tap_listeners() || (tap_flags & 
TL_REQUIRES_PROTO_TREE));

  [lines removed from listing]

  epan_dissect_init(&edt, cf->epan, create_proto_tree, FALSE);


When running tshark with the parameters above the decision to create a 
proto_tree is made in load_cap_file(...) function of tshark.c with this code:

  /* Do we have any tap listeners with filters? */
  filtering_tap_listeners = have_filtering_tap_listeners();

  /* Get the union of the flags for all tap listeners. */
  tap_flags = union_of_tap_listener_flags();

  if (perform_two_pass_analysis) {
    frame_data *fdata;

   [lines removed from listing]

    if (do_dissection) {
       gboolean create_proto_tree = FALSE;

      /* If we're going to be applying a filter, we'll need to
         create a protocol tree against which to apply the filter. */
      if (cf->rfcode || cf->dfcode)
        create_proto_tree = TRUE;

      tshark_debug("tshark: create_proto_tree = %s", create_proto_tree ? "TRUE" 
: "FALSE");

      /* We're not going to display the protocol tree on this pass,
         so it's not going to be "visible". */
      edt = epan_dissect_new(cf->epan, create_proto_tree, FALSE);
    }


Neither, cf->rfcode or cf->dfcode are true and so the tree isn't created.  I 
think the code should be:

      if (cf->rfcode || cf->dfcode || filtering_tap_listeners)
        create_proto_tree = TRUE;


Am I right?  Have I misunderstood something about tshark?

Thanks and regards...Paul

______________________________________________________________________

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete 
this e-mail from your system.

Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not 
necessarily represent those of Advance Seven Ltd. E-mail transmission cannot be 
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The 
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the 
contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

Advance Seven Ltd. Registered in England & Wales numbered 2373877 at Endeavour 
House, Coopers End Lane, Stansted, Essex CM24 1SJ

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to