January 2022 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

[PATCH 1/7] winhttp: Pass server initiated websocket close request to application.

by Paul Gofman

Signed-off-by: Paul Gofman <pgofman(a)codeweavers.com> --- dlls/winhttp/request.c | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/dlls/winhttp/request.c b/dlls/winhttp/request.c index ff2c18c469b..10c1beb0d2b 100644 --- a/dlls/winhttp/request.c +++ b/dlls/winhttp/request.c @@ -3591,6 +3591,8 @@ static DWORD receive_close_status( struct socket *socket, unsigned int len ) static DWORD handle_control_frame( struct socket *socket ) { + DWORD ret; + TRACE( "opcode %u.\n", socket->opcode ); switch (socket->opcode) @@ -3602,7 +3604,7 @@ static DWORD handle_control_frame( struct socket *socket ) return socket_drain( socket ); case SOCKET_OPCODE_CLOSE: - if (socket->state != SOCKET_STATE_CLOSED) + if (socket->state < SOCKET_STATE_SHUTDOWN) WARN( "SOCKET_OPCODE_CLOSE received, socket->state %u.\n", socket->state ); if (socket->close_frame_received) { @@ -3610,9 +3612,9 @@ static DWORD handle_control_frame( struct socket *socket ) return ERROR_WINHTTP_INVALID_SERVER_RESPONSE; } - receive_close_status( socket, socket->read_size ); + ret = receive_close_status( socket, socket->read_size ); socket->read_size = 0; - return ERROR_WINHTTP_INVALID_SERVER_RESPONSE; + return ret; default: ERR("unhandled control opcode %02x\n", socket->opcode); @@ -3654,7 +3656,8 @@ static DWORD socket_receive( struct socket *socket, void *buf, DWORD len, DWORD { if (!(ret = receive_frame( socket, &socket->read_size, &socket->opcode ))) { - if (!(socket->opcode & CONTROL_BIT) || (ret = handle_control_frame( socket ))) break; + if (!(socket->opcode & CONTROL_BIT) || (ret = handle_control_frame( socket )) + || socket->opcode == SOCKET_OPCODE_CLOSE) break; } else if (ret == WSAETIMEDOUT) ret = socket_send_pong( socket ); if (ret) break; -- 2.34.1

Jan. 27, 2022

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] server: Allow calling async_handoff() with status code STATUS_ALERTED.

by Zebediah Figura (she/her)

On 1/27/22 02:44, Jinoh Kang wrote: >> What we need to do here is similar to the infrastructure that already exists for device asyncs, namely "unknown_status" etc. It would be nice to use that instead of reinventing it, and although I haven't tried, it seems possible. > > That one was on the table, too. In fact it can also help eliminate the initial_status == STATUS_ALERTED check. > > One catch is that async_set_unknown_status also sets direct_result to 0, which means to always fire off APC on completion. > I wasn't entirely sure of what the effects of { .unknown_status = 1, .direct_result = 1 } would be. I believe that !direct_result is correct here, actually. Note that we only get an APC when calling async_terminate(), but we shouldn't be introducing any extra terminate calls. > >> >> async_add_queue() as it is above is not great. I'm not sure that code actually works in every case; > > !pending && terminated && alerted was the condition I was able to deduce to detect this exact condition. > It does sound a little arbitrary though, especially since it's testing for three unrelated conditions. > >> it definitely increases the mental burden even if it does. (Consider for instance that it would be triggered for *every* async). >> >> Instead what I'd suggest is to use the request introduced here in every case, even if the initial status was pending. > > You mean, along with use of unknown_status? In a sense they're orthogonal, but yes, I think doing both would help.

Jan. 27, 2022

Re: [PATCH] ws2_32: Increased iMaxSockets to 256

by Zebediah Figura (she/her)

This addresses one of my suggestions, but I'd still like to see tests for this value, including with different winsock versions.

Jan. 27, 2022

Re: [PATCH vkd3d v5 5/6] vkd3d-shader/hlsl: Remove Texture3DArrays from lexer and parser.

by Zebediah Figura (she/her)