This is a static archive of our old Q&A Site. Please post any new questions and answers at

Profinet dissector’s GSDML parser doesn’t seem to be ignoring HTML comments


I am developing a Profinet IO device. Using Wireshark Version 2.2.2, which allows registering a folder or directory for GSDML files. I have noticed an interesting issue when using a preliminary GSDML for which I commented out some identification information of the devices IO modules, and then added the specific information for the device under development. This GSDML file passes the syntax check from the Profibus International GSD Checker, as well as the syntax check of various PLC engineering tools, hence I have a reasonable degree of confidence on the GSDML file itself.

The interesting thing is that the captured Wireshark trace identifies the IO modules with the information which is supposed to be commented out in the HTML code, as opposed to the information on the valid GSDML code.

So my question is, may I be doing something wrong or is there a possibility that the GSDML parser in the Wireshark Profinet add-in is not handling the comments properly? I think it is well beyond my capability to develop a fix if the parser has a problem, so if I am right and somebody with higher skills would fix this issue, I would be extremely grateful.

asked 21 Dec '16, 22:14

Alfredo_Quintero's gravatar image

accept rate: 0%

edited 09 Jan '17, 03:39

grahamb's gravatar image

grahamb ♦

Could you share us a trace at a public accessible place?

(22 Dec '16, 01:14) Christian_R

One Answer:


Sounds like a bug, so please raise an entry on the Wireshark bugzilla, attaching a capture and GSDML file that exhibits the issue.

answered 22 Dec '16, 01:05

grahamb's gravatar image

grahamb ♦
accept rate: 22%

Hello. I have prepared the capture, the GSDML file and a screenshot with comments, which will make it a bit easier. Sorry it took a bit due to get it. Thanks for the follow-up.

(06 Jan '17, 20:11) Alfredo_Quin...

Hello. I have posted my report. This is the first time I have done this so I hope I did it correctly and that this can be helpful.

(06 Jan '17, 20:24) Alfredo_Quin...

A fix (that works at least for the files you provided) was committed by change 19593.

You should be able to pick up an automated build from here if you're running on one of the supported OS's, else you'll have to build it yourself from git.

(09 Jan '17, 03:23) grahamb ♦