Re: [PATCH v7 0/1] MR10174: bcryptprimitives: Abort if `ProcessPrng` fails

[Christopher Denton (＠cdenton)]

On Wed Feb 25 16:11:00 2026 +0000, Paul Gofman wrote:
> This whole discussion is focusing on formal handling of return status,
> but is missing the fact that read_dev_urandom() in ntdll (the only place
> where something can *theoretically* fail outside of process memory
> corruption, inventive hotpatching and such) doesn't have error checking
> / return at all. If this is a real concern it would make more sense to
> check the result and assert there instead of putting wrong things to the
> PE side (while I am personally still not sure about how that is useful
> too, reading random bytes is not supposed to fail in Unix the same way
> as on Windows, reinforcing that system is not totally broken in some
> arbitrary places doesn't look too much useful to me).
> Just to clarify something, would you agree that emitting an `ERR` here makes sense?

-- 
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10174#note_130508