Skip to content

Add RawPacketBase as common base class between raw packet implementations. #1900

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

Add RawPacketBase as common base class between raw packet implementations. #1900

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

@Dimi1010
Copy link
Collaborator

@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 commented Jul 26, 2025

Part of #1899

This PR adds a class RawPacketBase that is to work as a common base class between RawPacket and MBufRawPacket.
The current iteration only takes over the management for timestamp and linkLayer as a minimal example, without defining common API yet.

The class is defined in the internal namespace while in development, with the eventual goal to be "published" to the main namespace when complete.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 89.74359% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.88%. Comparing base (5b437d3) to head (985891c).
⚠️ Report is 67 commits behind head on dev.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
Packet++/src/RawPacket.cpp 85.71% 3 Missing ⚠️
Packet++/header/RawPacket.h 94.44% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev    #1900      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.89%   82.88%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         292      292              
  Lines       51834    51840       +6     
  Branches    11501    11316     -185     
==========================================
+ Hits        42966    42967       +1     
- Misses       7704     7710       +6     
+ Partials     1164     1163       -1
Flag Coverage Δ
alpine320 74.69% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
fedora42 74.83% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
macos-13 81.10% <89.65%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
macos-14 81.10% <89.65%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
macos-15 81.10% <89.65%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mingw32 70.13% <55.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
mingw64 70.13% <55.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
rhel94 74.54% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ubuntu2004 58.84% <70.58%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
ubuntu2004-zstd 58.98% <70.58%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
ubuntu2204 74.47% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ubuntu2204-icpx 60.87% <89.65%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ubuntu2404 74.72% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ubuntu2404-arm64 74.69% <80.95%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
unittest 82.88% <89.74%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
windows-2022 85.03% <93.54%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
windows-2025 85.05% <93.54%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
winpcap 85.05% <93.54%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
xdp 51.48% <71.42%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 marked this pull request as ready for review July 26, 2025 17:14
@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 requested a review from seladb as a code owner July 26, 2025 17:14
@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 closed this Jul 31, 2025
@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 reopened this Aug 1, 2025
@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 marked this pull request as draft August 1, 2025 11:58
@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 linked an issue Aug 1, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
Separate RawPacket and MBufRawPacket #1899
Open
@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 marked this pull request as ready for review August 2, 2025 05:34
tigercosmos
tigercosmos approved these changes Aug 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@tigercosmos tigercosmos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@seladb
Copy link
Owner

seladb commented Nov 15, 2025

@Dimi1010 I think we discussed it somewhere - I don't think this refactor is needed. Can we close this PR?

@Dimi1010
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Dimi1010 commented Nov 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@seladb I suppose we can close it for now. We did discuss it. I think we decided to defer the refactor, not discard it all together.

IIRC, the main cause for this was that the entanglement of RawPacket and MBufRawPacket was making it difficult for RawPacket to track its own capacity. Currently it only tracks the used buffer size, and capacity is tracked in Packet, which makes the RawPacket methods vulnerable to buffer overflows.

@seladb
Copy link
Owner

seladb commented Nov 16, 2025

think we decided to defer the refactor, not discard it all together.

If I remember the discussion, we decided it isn't worth the effort

@Dimi1010
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Dimi1010 commented Nov 16, 2025

If I remember the discussion, we decided it isn't worth the effort

This was how it ended:
#1888 (comment)

@Dimi1010
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Dimi1010 commented Nov 16, 2025

Anyway, I can close then PR for now.

@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 closed this Nov 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tigercosmos tigercosmos tigercosmos approved these changes

@seladb seladb Awaiting requested review from seladb seladb is a code owner

@clementperon clementperon Awaiting requested review from clementperon

@egecetin egecetin Awaiting requested review from egecetin

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

refactoring

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Separate RawPacket and MBufRawPacket

3 participants

@Dimi1010 @seladb @tigercosmos