On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> (Paging LTE experts here....) > > On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:02 AM, wme...@wireshark.org wrote: > > > http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=39384 > > > > User: wmeier > > Date: 2011/10/12 08:02 AM > > > > Log: > > Fix a benign bug: Use correct proto_tree_add_item() encoding arg. > > At least as I read RFC 3095: > > UOR-2-TS > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > | 1 1 0 | TS | > +===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+ > |T=1| M | SN | > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > | X | CRC | > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > > neither the old code nor the new code are correct - the "M" bit is in the > octet after the TS field. > > I don't see anything obvious in 3GPP TS 36.323 itself that says the format > is different; does something in a later RFC specify something different? > Guy, I'm sure to be missing something, but I don't see what is wrong with the current code, pasted here: if (T) { /* UOR-2-TS format */ /* TS */ guint8 ts = tvb_get_guint8(tvb, offset) & 0x1f; proto_tree_add_uint(tree, hf_pdcp_lte_rohc_ts, tvb, offset, 1, ts); offset++; /* Large CID */ if (p_pdcp_info->large_cid_present) { offset = dissect_large_cid(tree, tvb, offset); } /* m */ proto_tree_add_item(tree, hf_pdcp_lte_rohc_m, tvb, offset, 1, ENC_BIG_ENDIAN); /* TODO: */ } 'offset' is incremented after TS is dissected. The strange +====+=====+ notation indicates that if we have a large CID, thats where it appears. hf_pdcp_lte_rohc_m has the bitmask 0x40, which is OK. Note that the ROHC support in this file has been superceded by packet-rohc.c. Its been on my TODO list for a long time that I rip out this implementation and call the one in packet-rohc.c instead (after carefully checking that everything here was already there or merge it across). As far as I know, RFC 3095 is used as-is in PDCP (note that there are corrections/clarifications for this RFC, don't remember where) Regards, 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
