Hi Guy,
On 09/26/2009 09:31 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Eloy Paris wrote:
So it seems like the only option I have to fix the regression is to
convert the pcap_next() call to pcap_dispatch()/pcap_loop()
semantics. I don't
On Sep 26, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Eloy Paris wrote:
So it seems like the only option I have to fix the regression is to
convert the pcap_next() call to pcap_dispatch()/pcap_loop()
semantics. I don't think that copying the packet to a safe place as
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Eloy Paris wrote:
So it seems like the only option I have to fix the regression is to
convert the pcap_next() call to pcap_dispatch()/pcap_loop()
semantics. I don't think that copying the packet to a safe place as
soon as pcap_next() returns is good enough sinc
Hi Guy,
On 07/10/2009 05:07 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
pcap_next() and pcap_next_ex() rely on the packet data pointer handed to
their pcap_dispatch() callback still pointing to the same packet data
after the callback returns.
If the packet data is being read into a buffer with
read()/getmsg()/recvf
