Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 8912] IxVeriWave 11ac patch

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:47:59 +0000

Comment # 17 on bug 8912 from
(In reply to comment #14)
> Some notes about the following part of the patch for wiretap/vwr.c in
> vwr_get_fpga_version():
> 
>     if ((rec_size > vVW510021_W_STATS_LEN) && (fpga_version == 1000)) {
>         /* Check the version of the FPGA */
>         if (header[8] == 48)
>             fpga_version = S3_W_FPGA;
>      }
> 
>     if ((rec_size > vVW510021_W_STATS_LEN) && (fpga_version == 1000)) {
>         /* Check the version of the FPGA */
>         if (header[8] == 48)
>             fpga_version = S3_W_FPGA;
>     }
> 
> 1. The code is duplicated. Can the duplicated code be removed or was the
> second
>    if (...) intended to be something different ?

I've removed the duplication.

> 2. More importantly: with the addition of this test, at least 1 capture file
>    I have is incorrectly identified as a vwr capture file
>    (and then a crash occurs (see below) when the file is read for
> dissection).
> 
>    Looking at the code in vwr.c: vwr_get_fpga_version(): this test seems
>    a bit weak.
>    Essentially: Test for one of hex 21/31/C1/8B/FE in the 0th byte
>    and hex 30 in the 8th byte of a 16 byte 'header'.
> 
>    Looking a bit more deeply at the code: A search is done through the
>    file looking for certain patterns and skipping stuff (headers/data) which
>    don't match the pattern. Would it be possible to do some initial
> validation
>    of each "header" (e.g., checking for valid 'cmd' values) so that there
> would
>    be less likelihood of having to read a lot of data from the file before
>    deciding that it's not a vwr file.

I'll look at strengthening the heuristics.

> 3. The crash occurred in 'vwr_read_rec_data_wlan' in the following code:
> 
>     if ( rec_size < ((int)common_fields.vw_msdu_length +
> (int)vwr->STATS_LEN) ) 
>         /*something's been truncated, DUMP AS-IS*/
>         memcpy(&data_ptr[bytes_written], &rec[mpdu_offset],
>                 common_fields.vw_msdu_length);
> 
>     I think the problem is copying something greater than 'rec_size' is ng.

I've added more sanity checks to the code in the trunk.  (I reorganized the
code a fair bit to make it a bit clearer what was going on so I could figure
out

>     (I'll see if I can share the capture file I have which causes the crash).

If you still have it, see what happens on the trunk.


You are receiving this mail because:
  • You are watching all bug changes.