On OS X, a very simple script was running in 1.12.3, just upgraded to 2.0.0rc3 and it fails after a few time:
I run it in monitor mode with tshark:
I have a dozen of results before it crashes systematically with a segmentation fault 11 At one point, I had an error saying a variable was mutated:
Is my field mutated? How can I protect it? I've followed sample examples ... Thanks asked 17 Nov '15, 08:57 TomLaBaude |
2 Answers:
Hi Thomas, This seems to be a regression and I just filled bug 11722. Edit: and Stig just fixed it. It will be in official 2.0 release. answered 17 Nov '15, 12:06 Pascal Quantin edited 17 Nov '15, 13:58 showing 5 of 6 show 1 more comments |
Could be a bug in the memory management of the Lua code. Can you please try the following code? Does that cause a segfault as well?
Regards answered 17 Nov '15, 12:17 Kurt Knochner ♦ I did not see the post of @Pascal Quantin as there was no connection in the train ;-) (17 Nov '15, 12:18) Kurt Knochner ♦ |
This issue was related to the new "Reload Lua Plugins" UI functionality in 2.0. A fix to the bug report has been committed.
As a temporary workaround for RC3 you can try removing "local" in front of wlan to avoid the listener to go out of scope (being garbage collected).
Thanks guys for your reactivity! The temporary workaround work as well. Can I already download a release with the fix, or I wait for an official 2.0.0rc4?
There are automated builds available for OSX here but it's a bit tricky to work out if they include the change.
Tricky as in I can't see how to relate the build revisions (which have a git hash) to the commit for the change (which also has a git hash).
Maybe just pick the most recent one that has a timestamp a few hours after the timestamp of the commit.
You can use
git describe $commit_hash
to find out the release where it ended up. For 2.0 and 2.1 respectively: v2.0.0rc3-75-g290601a and v2.1.0rc0-620-g1329743. The versions currently listed on the automated builds page are up-to-date with the LUA fix.@Lekensteyn
Doesn't that command require you to have installed git and cloned the repo in the first place? If so, that's not usable for non-devs.
We should have a simple method for non-devs to determine if a build includes a change. Maybe a web page that does that command on behalf of the user, extra credit for allowing a Gerrit change number as the reference to check for.
One can compare the CommitDate with the items listed at the gitweb interface: for master (Development) and master-2.0. Perhaps Gerrit can be taught to print this description too in the review messages ("cherry-picked as XXX" " (v2.0.0-nnn-gXXX)")