Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel32: Implement CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent().

[Alexandre Julliard]

Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
> ---
>  dlls/kernel32/debugger.c       |   15 ++++++++++--
>  dlls/kernel32/tests/debugger.c |   44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  server/debugger.c              |   12 ++++++++++
>  server/protocol.def            |    8 +++++++
>  4 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

You can add that to an existing request like get_process_info. We don't
want a separate request for each bit of process information. The kernel
side should probably be based on NtQueryProcessInformation anyway.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

[PATCH 2/2] kernel32: Implement CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent().

[Henri Verbeet]

On 5 March 2010 13:21, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
> You can add that to an existing request like get_process_info. We don't
> want a separate request for each bit of process information. The kernel
> side should probably be based on NtQueryProcessInformation anyway.

There's ProcessDebugObjectHandle, but it's not clear to me what kind
of handle that actually returns. It's not a process handle at least.

[PATCH 2/2] kernel32: Implement CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent().

[Eric Pouech]

Henri Verbeet a écrit :
> On 5 March 2010 13:21, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
> > You can add that to an existing request like get_process_info. We don't
> > want a separate request for each bit of process information. The kernel
> > side should probably be based on NtQueryProcessInformation anyway.
>
> There's ProcessDebugObjectHandle, but it's not clear to me what kind
> of handle that actually returns. It's not a process handle at least.

ProcessDebugPort would be preferred (any non zero value would do)
A+

-- 
Eric Pouech
"The problem with designing something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of a complete idiot." (Douglas Adams)