On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:55 PM, wme...@wireshark.org wrote:
> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=45462
>
> User: wmeier
> Date: 2012/10/10 08:55 PM
>
> Log:
> Change 'for (i=1; i<=n;...' to 'for (i=0; i<n; ...)'
>
> Done on general principles altho none of the cases
> changed would have actually resulted in an infinite
> loop because a Bounds error would eventually occur.
Actually, this one:
for(sid_number = 1; sid_number <= number_of_sids; sid_number++) {
proto_tree_add_item(parameter_tree, hf_stream_reset_sid, parameter_tvb,
sid_offset, SID_LENGTH, ENC_BIG_ENDIAN);
sid_offset += SID_LENGTH;
}
could conceivably *not* cause a bounds error, as it looks as if it'd be
executed even if parameter_tree is null, in which case the
proto_tree_add_item() calls will just return without fetching anything from the
tvbuff. (That's why the buildbot bug I fixed with a similar change only showed
up when I ran TShark *without* -V - *with* -v, proto_tree_add_item() actually
fetched data from the tvbuff and threw a bounds error when it went past the end
of the packet, but without it (and without any display/read filter or color
filter or anything else that required building a protocol tree or even just
fetching protocol field values), nothing was fetched and no exceptions were
thrown.
___________________________________________________________________________
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
