[Bug 58608] New: SCardTransmit should work with pioSendPci=NULL
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 Bug ID: 58608 Summary: SCardTransmit should work with pioSendPci=NULL Product: Wine Version: 10.13 Hardware: x86-64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: winscard Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: pq2sx44teeigl7za(a)chyen.cc Distribution: --- Although undocumented, winscard.dll on Windows appears to accept pioSendPci=NULL for SCardTransmit. Such usage is observed in Taipei Fubon Bank's agent program. Steps to reproduce are: 1. Download and install https://ebank.taipeifubon.com.tw/EXT/inc/plugins/TfbWebATMServiceInstall.exe 2. Run C:\Program Files (x86)\TFB\WebATM\TFBWebATMAgent.exe 3. Go to https://ebank.taipeifubon.com.tw/EXT/common/CWA/Index.faces and try to login ("登入" button) -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 --- Comment #1 from yan12125 <pq2sx44teeigl7za(a)chyen.cc> --- Created attachment 79148 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=79148 Crash report -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 --- Comment #2 from yan12125 <pq2sx44teeigl7za(a)chyen.cc> --- Created attachment 79149 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=79149 Proof-of-concept patch One idea is querying the protocol to use if pioSendPci=NULL. Note that this patch was tested with older wine. I'll rebase and retest when I have time. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 --- Comment #3 from Hans Leidekker <hans(a)meelstraat.net> --- Created attachment 79152 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=79152 patch Thanks for the bug report. Here's an alternative patch that caches the protocol and avoids the SCardStatusW() call. Does it also fix your application? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |download, patch -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 --- Comment #4 from yan12125 <pq2sx44teeigl7za(a)chyen.cc> --- Thank you! The idea looks cool. I'll test and feedback when I find time. By the way, I noticed a potential issue after reading my patch again. Per [1], cbPciLength is "Length, in bytes, of the SCARD_IO_REQUEST structure plus any following PCI-specific information." Assume no PCI-specific information, sizeof(SCARD_IO_REQUEST) seems more correct. I don't remember why I used 0 - will test both variants based on your patch. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 --- Comment #5 from Hans Leidekker <hans(a)meelstraat.net> --- (In reply to yan12125 from comment #4)
Thank you! The idea looks cool. I'll test and feedback when I find time.
By the way, I noticed a potential issue after reading my patch again. Per [1], cbPciLength is "Length, in bytes, of the SCARD_IO_REQUEST structure plus any following PCI-specific information." Assume no PCI-specific information, sizeof(SCARD_IO_REQUEST) seems more correct. I don't remember why I used 0 - will test both variants based on your patch.
Right, I have already fixed that here. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 --- Comment #6 from yan12125 <pq2sx44teeigl7za(a)chyen.cc> ---
Right, I have already fixed that here.
Maybe not everything is fixed? This line send64.pci_len = 0; should probably be: send64.pci_len = sizeof(SCARD_IO_REQUEST); Based on my testing, either variant of your patch fixes the first issue encountered with TFBWebATMAgent.exe. It can get basic data from the card, while I'm still unable to login due to other errors ("ox1001"). -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 Hans Leidekker <hans(a)meelstraat.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed by SHA1| |57bcd21d93ac9a80c83d77f6572 | |2d32c5f594796 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Hans Leidekker <hans(a)meelstraat.net> --- Thanks for testing. This should be fixed with 57bcd21d93ac9a80c83d77f65722d32c5f594796. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58608 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #8 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- Closing bugs fixed in 10.14. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
WineHQ Bugzilla