[Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is due to a change I made yesterday.  The extra_info field of the
smb_saved_info_t struct is treated as a different data type depending on
the section of code you're in.  I think my fix was wrong in retrospect,
and that the extra_info should be replaced with separate fields for each
data type it's supposed to represent (e.g. extra_info_fid and
extra_info_nti).  Does this sound reasonable to those that are more
familiar with the SMB code?

Peter Johansson wrote:
> The following patch prevents a crash I ran into earlier caused by
> pinfo->private_data being NULL.
> 
> / Peter
> 
> Index: I:/ethereal-win32-libs/epan/dissectors/packet-smb-mailslot.c
> ===================================================================
> --- I:/ethereal-win32-libs/epan/dissectors/packet-smb-mailslot.c   
> (revision 14113)
> +++ I:/ethereal-win32-libs/epan/dissectors/packet-smb-mailslot.c   
> (working copy)
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@
>     }
> 
>     smb_info = pinfo->private_data;
> -    if (smb_info->sip != NULL && smb_info->sip->extra_info_type ==
> SMB_EI_TRI)
> +    if (smb_info != NULL && smb_info->sip != NULL &&
> smb_info->sip->extra_info_type == SMB_EI_TRI)
>         tri = smb_info->sip->extra_info;
>     else
>         tri = NULL;
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev