Re: ntdll: Don't use strncasecmp for _strnicmp implementation
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:38:51PM +0200, Jacek Caban wrote:
--- dlls/ntdll/string.c | 12 +++++++++++- dlls/ntdll/tests/string.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/string.c b/dlls/ntdll/string.c index 716dbdf..288e910 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/string.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/string.c @@ -254,7 +254,17 @@ int __cdecl _stricmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2 ) */ int __cdecl _strnicmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2, size_t n ) { - return strncasecmp( str1, str2, n ); + int ret = 0; + + /* 32-bit Windows return only -1,0,1 values */ + while(n--) { + if(!*str1) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (*str2 ? -1 : 0) : -(unsigned char)*str2; + if((ret = tolower(*str1++) - tolower(*str2++))) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (ret > 0 ? 1 : -1) : ret; + }
Errm. Why not int ret = strncasecmp( str1, str2, n ); if (ret < 0 ) return -1; if (ret > 0 ) return 1; return 0; Ciao, Marcus
On 10/16/12 13:08, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:38:51PM +0200, Jacek Caban wrote:
--- dlls/ntdll/string.c | 12 +++++++++++- dlls/ntdll/tests/string.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/string.c b/dlls/ntdll/string.c index 716dbdf..288e910 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/string.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/string.c @@ -254,7 +254,17 @@ int __cdecl _stricmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2 ) */ int __cdecl _strnicmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2, size_t n ) { - return strncasecmp( str1, str2, n ); + int ret = 0; + + /* 32-bit Windows return only -1,0,1 values */ + while(n--) { + if(!*str1) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (*str2 ? -1 : 0) : -(unsigned char)*str2; + if((ret = tolower(*str1++) - tolower(*str2++))) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (ret > 0 ? 1 : -1) : ret; + } Errm. Why not
int ret = strncasecmp( str1, str2, n );
if (ret < 0 ) return -1; if (ret > 0 ) return 1; return 0;
That wasn't the original reason for writing this patch. It seems like some distros (well, at least some Gentoo installations) have broken strncasecmp. Jacek
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:12:50PM +0200, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 10/16/12 13:08, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:38:51PM +0200, Jacek Caban wrote:
--- dlls/ntdll/string.c | 12 +++++++++++- dlls/ntdll/tests/string.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/string.c b/dlls/ntdll/string.c index 716dbdf..288e910 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/string.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/string.c @@ -254,7 +254,17 @@ int __cdecl _stricmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2 ) */ int __cdecl _strnicmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2, size_t n ) { - return strncasecmp( str1, str2, n ); + int ret = 0; + + /* 32-bit Windows return only -1,0,1 values */ + while(n--) { + if(!*str1) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (*str2 ? -1 : 0) : -(unsigned char)*str2; + if((ret = tolower(*str1++) - tolower(*str2++))) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (ret > 0 ? 1 : -1) : ret; + } Errm. Why not
int ret = strncasecmp( str1, str2, n );
if (ret < 0 ) return -1; if (ret > 0 ) return 1; return 0;
That wasn't the original reason for writing this patch. It seems like some distros (well, at least some Gentoo installations) have broken strncasecmp.
How exactly? Do you know more details / urls? Does it return -n ... +n values? Like the memcmp optimization that caused mysql security issue? In that case my patch should work. Ciao, Marcus
On 10/16/12 13:16, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:12:50PM +0200, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 10/16/12 13:08, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:38:51PM +0200, Jacek Caban wrote:
--- dlls/ntdll/string.c | 12 +++++++++++- dlls/ntdll/tests/string.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/string.c b/dlls/ntdll/string.c index 716dbdf..288e910 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/string.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/string.c @@ -254,7 +254,17 @@ int __cdecl _stricmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2 ) */ int __cdecl _strnicmp( LPCSTR str1, LPCSTR str2, size_t n ) { - return strncasecmp( str1, str2, n ); + int ret = 0; + + /* 32-bit Windows return only -1,0,1 values */ + while(n--) { + if(!*str1) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (*str2 ? -1 : 0) : -(unsigned char)*str2; + if((ret = tolower(*str1++) - tolower(*str2++))) + return sizeof(void*) == 4 ? (ret > 0 ? 1 : -1) : ret; + } Errm. Why not
int ret = strncasecmp( str1, str2, n );
if (ret < 0 ) return -1; if (ret > 0 ) return 1; return 0; That wasn't the original reason for writing this patch. It seems like some distros (well, at least some Gentoo installations) have broken strncasecmp. How exactly? Do you know more details / urls?
Does it return -n ... +n values? Like the memcmp optimization that caused mysql security issue? In that case my patch should work.
From what I know following call crashes: strncasecmp("", "", 1); It's probably a corner case for some optimizations.
Jacek
On 10/16/12 13:21, Jacek Caban wrote:
How exactly? Do you know more details / urls?
Does it return -n ... +n values? Like the memcmp optimization that caused mysql security issue? In that case my patch should work. From what I know following call crashes: strncasecmp("", "", 1); It's probably a corner case for some optimizations.
FWIW it was a known, already fixed, upstream glibc bug: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14195 Jacek
Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
That wasn't the original reason for writing this patch. It seems like some distros (well, at least some Gentoo installations) have broken strncasecmp.
There are many places in Wine that use strncasecmp, we don't want to change them all just because of some Gentoo screwup. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Jacek Caban -
Marcus Meissner