This is our old Q&A Site. Please post any new questions and answers at ask.wireshark.org.

Given:

local foo_proto = Proto(,)

local foo_fields = foo_proto.fields

foo_fields is a ProtoField[] (at least that is how I think of it)

Is there a way to define

foo_proto.messages where messages is a Message[]

And for each Message have Message.ProtoField[] fields

In other words I would like to structure field definitions, instead of having a flat/linear ProtoField definition

asked 25 Nov '13, 02:12

Lews%20Therin's gravatar image

Lews Therin
11447
accept rate: 100%

retagged 07 Mar '14, 16:45

Hadriel's gravatar image

Hadriel
2.7k2939


Maybe, depending on how you mean the question.

Basically the foo_proto.fields member is a Lua table array of ProtoFields, as you said; but it's real purpose is to bind the internal wireshark representation of protocol fields to Lua. When you set the ProtoFields into the foo_proto.fields member, which you don't show in your example but is presumably being done, then internally wireshark remembers those fields, and once your script is loaded, they're each registered internally for your protocol. That internal structure isn't changeable by Lua code. You can certainly store those fields in other tables/variables in your Lua script, but it won't change how wireshark processes them.

So, for example, you could do this:

-- my new proto
local foo_proto = Proto(...)
-- create some protofields
local field1 = ProtoField.new(...)
local field2 = ProtoField.new(...)
local field3 = ProtoField.new(...)
-- sets the protofields to the proto
foo_proto.fields = { field1, field2 }
-- have a nicer way of getting my protofields
local myfoo = { message = {header = field1, data = field2}, keepalive = field3 }

function foo_proto.dissector(tvbuf,pktinfo,root)
    ...
    tree:add(myfoo.message.data, tvbuf:range(2,2))
    ...
end

You can do that, but it's not like Wireshark is going to know that field2 or myfoo.message.data is at that buffer range/offset or anything. All you're doing is creating a Lua table, with member variables that happen to point to the same ProtoField userdata objects that you set into the Proto.field member. I.e., since userdata objects are handled as pointers and copied by reference, the above works; wireshark knows nothing about it... as far as wireshark knows, your myfoo.message.data is identical to using field2.

What you cannot do, is do that type of thing using foo_proto.messages, because foo_proto represents a wirshark object, and that class type has no member variable named messages which you could be getting/setting from/to. In the past I think it might have silently allowed you to it but not actually done the action; but more recent versions will error if you try setting a member that doesn't exist like that.

permanent link

answered 07 Mar '14, 17:12

Hadriel's gravatar image

Hadriel
2.7k2939
accept rate: 18%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×637
×431
×12

question asked: 25 Nov '13, 02:12

question was seen: 3,228 times

last updated: 07 Mar '14, 17:12

p​o​w​e​r​e​d by O​S​Q​A