Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] svn r29431 doesn't look right to me.

[Kovarththanan Rajaratnam <kovarththanan.rajaratnam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey,

Good catch. I only noticed that setting the last 5 members would have no 
effect so I simply replaced them with HFILL. This also looks suspicious:

-      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
+      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0F, NULL, HFILL }

The base is specified as 16. AFAICT, this isn't a valid combination for 
FT_UINT8. Sadly I'm not familiar with the EtherCAT protocol. Can someone 
shed some light on this?


didier wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm not sure because I don't have EtherCAT captures but
>
> in plugins/ethercat/packet-ecatmb.c for example 
> -      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
> +      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, HFILL }
>
> Wasn't 0x0000000F in bitshift field a bug and the right patch something
> like?
> -      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
> +      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0F, NULL, HFILL }
>
> Didier
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe