Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 32519: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trun
On Apr 28, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> guy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=32519
>>
>> User: guy
>> Date: 2010/04/19 04:38 PM
>>
>> Log:
>> If that should truly "never happen", use DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED()
>> so it's more clearly marked as a dissector bug.
>>
>> (It apparently *does* happen - see bug 4698.)
>
> This has the randpkt test failing on the buildbot.
...which means that the RSVP dissector has, and had even before that checkin, a bug, in that something that, according to a comment in the code, "should never happen" can, in fact, happen with a bogus packet; this just makes the bug more obvious.
> Should it really be backported to 1.2.8?
Clearly marking something that "should never happen" but does happen as a dissector bug in the dissection is better than just putting a blob of
Unknown session type
into the protocol tree, so, yes, I'd backport it.
> Or should the randpkt test accept dissector bugs as OK (like the fuzz
> testing)?
The fuzz testing accepts dissector bug reports as OK? That seems like an error to me.
