December 2013 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Help about implementing WSACleanup (ws2_32)
by Bruno Jesus 29 Dec '13

29 Dec '13

Hi, in an attempt to fix bugs 18670 and 26031 I would like to try implementing WSACleanup more properly. My limited knowledge in the interactions between the ws2_32 dll and wine server makes me think this is easy. The idea is to add the created socket in WSASocketW in a list and remove it from the list when closesocket is called. When the last WSACleanup is called it would iterate through the socket list and destroy the remaining sockets. When WSASocketW is called it calls the server to create the socket, when closesocket is called the server is also called and the function sock_destroy takes care of shutting down the socket. Currently I'm thinking about doing this in the dll side because the server is not aware of WSACleanup, but maybe it should because it needs to avoid calling any async operation completion. My questions are: 1) When I open 2 programs that use ws2_32 dll the global variables memory is not shared, right? Otherwise the WSAStartup/Cleanup count could be messed up if one application didn't call the Cleanup function. I hope this true so the socket list would not have to take care of different processes id. I understand that one application can have multiple threads and that's what the struct per_thread_data is about, but I hope the dll is not shared among different processes. 2) Is this a reasonable approach? If yes, is there any example of a critical protected list (add, iterate, remove items) that I could use? Best wishes, Bruno

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dmusic/tests: Add some COM tests for IDirectMusic/IDirectMusicCollection
by Marvin 28 Dec '13

28 Dec '13

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=3877 Your paranoid android. === w2008s64 (32 bit dmusic) === dmusic.c:244: Test failed: DirectMusic8 create failed: 80040154, expected CLASS_E_NOAGGREGATION dmusic.c:251: Test failed: DirectMusic8 create failed: 80040154, expected E_NOINTERFACE dmusic.c:256: Test failed: DirectMusic8 create failed: 80040154, expected S_OK dmusic: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00401FDE === w2008s64 (64 bit dmusic) === dmusic.c:244: Test failed: DirectMusic8 create failed: 80040154, expected CLASS_E_NOAGGREGATION dmusic.c:251: Test failed: DirectMusic8 create failed: 80040154, expected E_NOINTERFACE dmusic.c:256: Test failed: DirectMusic8 create failed: 80040154, expected S_OK dmusic: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000401EC2

1 0

Re: qedit/tests: Constify some character strings
by Marvin 28 Dec '13

28 Dec '13

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=3869 Your paranoid android. === w2008s64 (32 bit mediadet) === mediadet.c:149: Test failed: CoCreateInstance failed: 80040154 mediadet: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0040185A === w2008s64 (64 bit mediadet) === mediadet.c:149: Test failed: CoCreateInstance failed: 80040154 mediadet: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00000000004017C3

1 0

Re: wtsapi32: partial implementation of WTSEnumerateProcessesW (resend)
by André Hentschel 28 Dec '13

28 Dec '13

> diff --git a/dlls/wtsapi32/wtsapi32.c b/dlls/wtsapi32/wtsapi32.c > index 898b95d..53c6325 100644 > --- a/dlls/wtsapi32/wtsapi32.c > +++ b/dlls/wtsapi32/wtsapi32.c > @@ -18,9 +18,13 @@ > #include "config.h" > #include <stdarg.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > -#include "windef.h" > -#include "winbase.h" > +#include "ntstatus.h" > +#define WIN32_NO_STATUS > +#include "winternl.h" > #include "wtsapi32.h" > +#include "wine/library.h" > +#include "wine/server.h" > +#include "wine/unicode.h" > #include "wine/debug.h" do you need that all? > WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(wtsapi); > @@ -84,14 +88,65 @@ BOOL WINAPI WTSEnumerateProcessesA(HANDLE hServer, DWORD Reserved, DWORD Version > BOOL WINAPI WTSEnumerateProcessesW(HANDLE hServer, DWORD Reserved, DWORD Version, > PWTS_PROCESS_INFOW* ppProcessInfo, DWORD* pCount) > { > - FIXME("Stub %p 0x%08x 0x%08x %p %p\n", hServer, Reserved, Version, > - ppProcessInfo, pCount); > + SYSTEM_PROCESS_INFORMATION *spi; > + ULONG size = 0x4000; > + void *buf = NULL; > + NTSTATUS status; > + DWORD i,lcount = 0; > + WTS_PROCESS_INFOW *linfo; can't you use sizeof(*spi) or a multiple of it for size? or clean it up somehow else... > if (!ppProcessInfo || !pCount) return FALSE; > > *pCount = 0; > *ppProcessInfo = NULL; > > + if (hServer != WTS_CURRENT_SERVER_HANDLE) > + { > + FIXME("Only WTS_CURRENT_SERVER_HANDLE is impemented\n"); > + return FALSE; > + } > + > + do { > + size *= 2; > + HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, buf); > + buf = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size); > + if (!buf) > + return FALSE; > + > + status = NtQuerySystemInformation(SystemProcessInformation, buf, size, NULL); > + } while(status == STATUS_INFO_LENGTH_MISMATCH); > + > + if (status != STATUS_SUCCESS) > + { > + HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, buf); > + SetLastError(RtlNtStatusToDosError(status)); > + return FALSE; > + } > + > + spi = buf; why not dropping buf completely? > + do { > + lcount++; > + spi = (SYSTEM_PROCESS_INFORMATION *)(((PCHAR)spi) + spi->NextEntryOffset); > + } while(spi->NextEntryOffset != 0); isn't there an easier way to get the count? > + linfo = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, lcount * sizeof(WTS_PROCESS_INFOW)); > + if(!linfo) > + return FALSE; > + > + for(i = 0, spi = buf; i < lcount; i++) > + { > + linfo[i].SessionId = 0; > + linfo[i].ProcessId = HandleToUlong(spi->UniqueProcessId); > + linfo[i].pProcessName = spi->ProcessName.Buffer; > + linfo[i].pUserSid = NULL; > + spi = (SYSTEM_PROCESS_INFORMATION *)(((PCHAR)spi) + spi->NextEntryOffset); > + } > + *ppProcessInfo = linfo; > + *pCount = lcount; > + FIXME("pUserSid not filled\n"); > + > + HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, buf); > return TRUE; > } > > diff --git a/include/wtsapi32.h b/include/wtsapi32.h > index f4bab56..0476478 100644 > --- a/include/wtsapi32.h > +++ b/include/wtsapi32.h > @@ -135,6 +135,8 @@ typedef struct _WTS_SERVER_INFOW > DECL_WINELIB_TYPE_AW(WTS_SERVER_INFO) > DECL_WINELIB_TYPE_AW(PWTS_SERVER_INFO) > > +#define WTS_CURRENT_SERVER_HANDLE NULL > + maybe some more WTS_ defines while you're at it > void WINAPI WTSCloseServer(HANDLE); > BOOL WINAPI WTSConnectSessionA(ULONG, ULONG, PSTR, BOOL); > BOOL WINAPI WTSConnectSessionW(ULONG, ULONG, PWSTR, BOOL); >

2 1

Re: kernel32/tests: add test for RemoveDirectory
by Dmitry Timoshkov 27 Dec '13

27 Dec '13

Zhenbo Li <litimetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > + /* remove a nonexist directory */ > + rc = RemoveDirectoryA(directory); > + todo_wine > + ok(!rc && GetLastError() == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, > + "Expected ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, got ret=%d, gle=%d\n", rc, GetLastError() ); This kind of test for several values simultaneously is really very awkward as a starting point for any person who is going to work on this, or just is looking for a simple bug to fix and greps for todo_wine in the tests. First of all it's not clear where the failure is: is it the API failing to return correct return value, or is it just last error which is set differently? I admit that the error message mentions both values, but it's often more useful to spot areas with todo_wine statements and clearly see the reason of a failure without actually running the test. -- Dmitry.

3 3

Re: Bruno Jesus : ws2_32: Do not convert EAI_xxx return in case of success.
by Bruno Jesus 27 Dec '13

27 Dec '13

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > Module: wine > Branch: master > Commit: fc5884c23296c0f121442d0832b0187074e95a10 > ... > @@ -5365,6 +5365,8 @@ static int convert_aiflag_u2w(int unixflags) { > static int convert_eai_u2w(int unixret) { > int i; > > + if (!unixret) return 0; > + > for (i=0;ws_eai_map[i][0];i++) > if (ws_eai_map[i][1] == unixret) > return ws_eai_map[i][0]; Hi, Alexandre. I just would like to say that my patch was based on the other use case of the convert_eai_u2w function, that is just call the function to convert EAI results. Zero is not an EAI result (there is no EAI_SUCCESS or something like that) so in my patch I just avoided calling the conversion function. I'm talking about this use case: http://source.winehq.org/source/dlls/ws2_32/socket.c#L5488 In summary, I think my original patch [1] could get a new reviewing. [1] - http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/101198 Best wishes, Bruno

1 0

Re: [4/4] ws2_32: Add extended IPX protocol support (try 2, resend)
by Marvin 27 Dec '13

27 Dec '13

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=3867 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (c8): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 === w2008s64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (750): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 === w2008s64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (654): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 000007FEFE4C9D54

1 0

Re: [3/4] ws2_32: Add extended IPX protocol support (try 2)
by Marvin 27 Dec '13

27 Dec '13

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=3866 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (194): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 === w2008s64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (750): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 === w2008s64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (654): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0

1 0

Re: loader: bump XP 64-bit to service pack 2
by Qian Hong 27 Dec '13

27 Dec '13

Hi Austin, you forgot the patch? On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Fixes http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35084 > > (follow up to 0463d01f151fb3d7c7acf26c7628683fefb6c130) > > > -- > -Austin > > -- Regards, Qian Hong - http://www.winehq.org

2 1

Re: [4/4] ws2_32/tests: Fix some test message typos
by Marvin 27 Dec '13

27 Dec '13

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=3861 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (5a8): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock.c:2101: Test failed: Expected 10043, received 10047 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 71AB3F3A === wvista (32 bit sock) === sock.c:2101: Test failed: Expected 10043, received 10047 === w2008s64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (750): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock.c:2101: Test failed: Expected 10043, received 10047 === w7pro64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:2101: Test failed: Expected 10043, received 10047 === w2008s64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:522: Test failed: oob_server (654): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock.c:2101: Test failed: Expected 10043, received 10047 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 000007FEFE4C9CD9 === w7pro64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:2101: Test failed: Expected 10043, received 10047

1 0