[SNMP4J] SNMP4J Problem using OID.nextPeer()

[Frank Fock]

Hello Anthony,

Thanks for reporting this bug. The correct fix would
be

     if ((next.size() > 0) && (last() != MAX_SUBID_VALUE)) {

instead of

     if ((next.size() > 0) && (last() < MAX_SUBID_VALUE)) {

I will put this fix in the 1.7.1 version which will be
released on Monday next week.

Best regards,
Frank

Zinger, Anthony J wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>  
> 
>   I have SNMP4J version 1.7 installed on a Windows PC running Microsoft
> Windows XP Version 2002 Service Pack 2.
> 
>  
> 
>   A sample of my code using the OID.nextPeer() method:
> 
>  
> 
>              OID testOID = new OID(new int[] { 1,3,6,1,4,1,100,1,2,3,0
> });
> 
>  
> 
>              PDU request = new ScopedPDU();
> 
> request.setType(PDU.GET);
> 
>              request.add(new VariableBinding(testOID));
> 
>              ResponseEvent responseEvent = sendSNMPMessage(snmp,
> request, target);
> 
>                           :
> 
>                           :
> 
>              testOID = testOID.nextPeer();
> 
>  
> 
>   I was trying to get the next OID value for an entry in my MIB using
> the OID.nextPeer() method and I got the:
> 
>  Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:627)
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
>       at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
> at org.snmp4j.smi.OID.nextPeer(OID.java:628)
> 
>  
> 
>   After adding some debug messages to OID.nextPeer(), I determined that
> the check for last() < MAX_SUBID_VALUE in the  IF statement was always
> returning false:
> 
>       if ((next.size() > 0) && (last() < MAX_SUBID_VALUE)) {
> 
>  
> 
>   The MAX_SUBID_VALUE is defined as:
> 
>       public static final int MAX_SUBID_VALUE = 0xFFFFFFFF;
> 
>  
> 
>   Executing this code on my PC interprets the MAX_SUBID_VALUE as -1 and
> therefore fails.
> 
>   To resolve this problem, I defined MAX_SUBID_VALUE to be 0x7FFFFFFF,
> and this problem went away.
> 
>  
> 
>   So a potential fix for this problem would be to define the
> MAX_SUBID_VALUE as an "UNSIGNED" int or have a value of 0x7FFFFFFF.
> 
>  
> 
>   If this is not the correct solution to this problem, could you please
> supply me with an explanation as to what it should be or what I am doing
> wrong.
> 
>  
> 
>   Thanks for your help in resolving this problem.
> 
>  
> 
> Anthony J. Zinger
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SNMP4J mailing list
> SNMP4J at agentpp.org
> http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j

-- 
AGENT++
http://www.agentpp.com
http://www.mibexplorer.com
http://www.mibdesigner.com