Ulf Lamping wrote: > Richard van der Hoff wrote: >> Richard van der Hoff wrote: >>> [tshark from a fifo] >>> Ulf - I notice you made the relevant change here (r16787) - is there >>> any reason why tshark shouldn't use capture_loop_dispatch to do its >>> processing, rather than attempting to use cap_pipe_dispatch or >>> pcap_dispatch directly? >> well, there didn't seem to be, so I've made a patch which does exactly >> this, and which fixes the problem. >> >> I've even gone so far as to add a unit test for it :). >> >> Please could this be applied? >> > Hi Richard, sorry for the very late response! > > Yes, there are reasons to use the same code for Wireshark and Tshark: > > - having duplicated and slightly different code for the same task is a > bad thing (unless there are *very* good reasons to do so)
Of course; however I rather felt that I was making the code closer to what was done in Wireshark, rather than the opposite! I appreciate there's a long way to go, but still - making both dumpcap and tshark use capture_loop_dispatch seemed an improvement. > - these were the first steps towards privilege seperation (which are > mostly finished in Wireshark but needs to be finished in Tshark) As in, the intention is to make tshark use dumpcap as well? Fair enough, but (a) I don't see how the change to cap_pipe_dispatch and pcap_dispatch is a helpful step along this path, and (b) I'd still like a fix to this problem in the short term! Thanks, Richard -- Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Project Manager Tel: +44 (0) 845 666 7778 http://www.mxtelecom.com _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
