> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:54 AM, <eapa...@wireshark.org> wrote:
> > http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=52578
> >
> > User: eapache
> > Date: 2013/10/13 04:54 AM
> >
> > Log:
[...]
> > All of this is (theoretically) unnecessary - simply checking the offset
> > without
> > worrying about the length will still catch the very-long-loops, since it
> > is the
> > offset that increases in each iteration, not the length.
> >
> > All that to justify:
> > - implement tvb_ensure_offset_exists which throws an exception if the
> > offset is
> > not within the tvb
> > - use it instead of all the complicated other logic in the
> > pre-short-circuit
> > step of proto_tree_add_item and friends
> >
> > This gives us back about 3/4 of the performance we lost in the original
> > patch.
> > We're still ~2% slower than without any check, but this is the best I can
> > think
> > of right now.
> >
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:58:12AM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
> Jeff (and/or anyone else who cares) I'd appreciate a verification that
> my logic here is correct, and that I've not accidentally undone your
> good work.
I think it's fine, unless in loops there're some weird offset integer overflows
(which returns back to offset + 0), like easy case:
proto_tree_add_item(..., offset, 0xfffffffe /* -2 */, ...); offset +=
(-2);
proto_tree_add_item(..., offset, +2, ...); offset += (+2);
About tvb_offset_exists() comment, compute_offset() is not returning
exception when offset == tvb->length.
Kuba.
___________________________________________________________________________
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
