Re: [tcpdump-workers] [tcpdump] After setjmp/longjmp update

2020-09-23 Thread Francois-Xavier Le Bail via tcpdump-workers 
--- Begin Message ---
On 20/09/2020 18:25, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Also, please confirm for me that these lines like this are redundant:
> 
>   ND_TCHECK_LEN(p, IEEE802_11_REASON_LEN);
>   if (length < IEEE802_11_REASON_LEN)
>   goto trunc;
> 
> In fact, we don't need/want either of them anymore, because the GET_* will
> handle the range check.

Answer here:
https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/pull/875#pullrequestreview-493054552
(point 4)
--- End Message ---
___
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [tcpdump] After setjmp/longjmp update

2020-09-23 Thread Francois-Xavier Le Bail via tcpdump-workers 
--- Begin Message ---
On 20/09/2020 18:28, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Given:
> 
>   case CTRL_BA:
> (*)   ND_TCHECK_LEN(p, CTRL_BA_HDRLEN);
>   if (!ndo->ndo_eflag)
>   ND_PRINT(" RA:%s ",
>   GET_ETHERADDR_STRING(((const struct ctrl_ba_hdr_t 
> *)p)->ra));
>   break;
> 
> If we remove (*), if the eflag is not set, then the GET_ETHERADDR_STRING()
> won't be called, and there will be no truncated warning at this point.
> Is that the right thing?

Answer here:
https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/pull/875#pullrequestreview-493054552
(point 3)
--- End Message ---
___
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers