Packet Db Not Read Correctly | closed | |
| theultramage 2008-02-16 18:47:00 | http://www.eathena.ws/board/index.php?autocom=bugtracker&showbug=984 I received a "unknown packet 0x1bc" disconnect when using the newly implemented /recall command, so I investigated... turns out that there is a sort of problem in the packetdb loading code. CODE if (packet_db[packet_ver][cmd].func != clif_parse_func[j].func) In other words, if I use two different names (which use the same function) for 2 different packets, this thing will wipe out the first one of them. I have yet to find a reason why such a thing is done. Blame goes to Skotlex@r2525, the very initial multi-packetver implementation.{ //If we are updating a function, we need to zero up the previous one. [Skotlex] for(i=0;i<=MAX_PACKET_DB;i++){ if (packet_db[packet_ver][i].func == clif_parse_func[j].func) { memset(&packet_db[packet_ver][i], 0, sizeof(struct s_packet_db)); break; } } } Side note: The embedded packet table seems to have packet lengths for client->server packets as well, although they're outdated and not used at all. Side note: CODE packet_ver = MAX_PACKET_VER; // read into packet_db's version by default now what this does on the first iteration (when beginning to process the first version, no. 5) is, that it memcpy-ies packetver 22 (which is totally empty at this point) into packetver 5 (which is equally empty). I'm not sure if this no-op is intended or not.while( fgets(line, sizeof(line), fp) ) { ... if(strcmpi(w1,"packet_ver")==0) { int prev_ver = packet_ver; // copy from previous version into new version and continue memcpy(&packet_db[packet_ver], &packet_db[prev_ver], sizeof(packet_db[0])); This post has been edited by theultramage: Feb 16 2008, 11:06 AM | |
| Ind 2012-01-05 04:16:30 | it was fixed in [rev=12211], skotlex commented on that however: [quote] NO NO NO. You don't do that o_O You need to clear the previous version, or you end up with fake duplicates and start parsing packets which should not even be correct in the current version as if they were from previous versions. I do not know how much damage it can do, but the thing is you are gonna end with a lot of wrong entries in the packet_db, like 4 or 5 packets will point to the same function, but only one is valid because the other 4 were from previous packet versions. I suppose that in practice it will still work, but from a design point of view, that cleanup is just plain wrong D: [/quote] | |
| Antares 2014-07-29 10:00:20 | Updating status to: Done | |
