[Bug 56155] New: Possible nullpointer dereference in NtUserThunkedMenuItemInfo (Coverity)

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155

Bug ID: 56155
           Summary: Possible nullpointer dereference in
                    NtUserThunkedMenuItemInfo (Coverity)
           Product: Wine
           Version: 9.0-rc3
          Hardware: x86-64
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: ntdll
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
      Distribution: ---

Not exactly what Coverity reported, but NtUserCheckMenuRadioItem is missing a
nullpointer check. We have the following code:
> case NtUserCheckMenuRadioItem:
>     return check_menu_radio_item( handle, pos, info->cch, info->fMask, flags );

We probably should check "info" for NULL here as well.

Coverity link:
https://scan5.scan.coverity.com/reports.htm#v60945/p10088/fileInstanceId=257...

[Bug 56155] Possible nullpointer dereference in NtUserThunkedMenuItemInfo (Coverity)

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155

Alexandre Julliard  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Julliard  ---
There's no need to check pointers in syscalls.

Also please don't file bugs for Coverity warnings, most of them are false
positives.

[Bug 56155] Possible nullpointer dereference in NtUserThunkedMenuItemInfo (Coverity)

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155

Austin English  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |CLOSED

--- Comment #2 from Austin English  ---
Closing.

[Bug 56155] Possible nullpointer dereference in NtUserThunkedMenuItemInfo (Coverity)

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155

--- Comment #3 from Fabian Maurer  ---
How exactly will that work with pointer checking in syscalls going forward? I
thought that is needed to give the right return code, like
ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER over STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION?