Am 02.05.22 um 12:26 schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
Bernhard Übelacker bernhardu@mailbox.org writes:
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/unix/file.c b/dlls/ntdll/unix/file.c index cc8bf0c6e82..92b67280500 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/unix/file.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/unix/file.c @@ -4893,7 +4893,7 @@ static NTSTATUS server_ioctl_file( HANDLE handle, HANDLE event, { req->code = code; req->async = server_async( handle, &async->io, event, apc, apc_context, iosb_client_ptr(io) );
wine_server_add_data( req, in_buffer, in_size );
if (in_buffer) wine_server_add_data( req, in_buffer, in_size ); if ((code & 3) != METHOD_BUFFERED) wine_server_add_data( req, out_buffer, out_size ); wine_server_set_reply( req, out_buffer, out_size ); status = virtual_locked_server_call( req );
It still doesn't make sense to silently ignore the input data. Either it's needed and it should fail without sending the request, or it's not needed and it should never be sent at all.
Hello Alexandre, sorry for the delay and thanks for the input.
I am about to send a v3 that moves the modification further to the caller and never sends inputs for IOCTL_STORAGE_GET_DEVICE_NUMBER.
Kind regards, Bernhard