New subject: [PATCH] rasapi32: Ensure device count matches data returned

26 Feb 2017

On 26.02.2017 20:41, Bruno Jesus wrote:
...
From: Bruno Jesus bjesus@codeweavers.com
Based on original patch by Qian Hong.
Fixes bug https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30378
Signed-off-by: Bruno Jesus bjesus@codeweavers.com
dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c       |  1 +
 dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c b/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c
index fcd0cb8..f97d4c1 100644
--- a/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c
+++ b/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c
@@ -254,6 +254,7 @@ DWORD WINAPI RasEnumDevicesA(LPRASDEVINFOA lpRasDevinfo, LPDWORD lpcb, LPDWORD l
   if(lpRasDevinfo && lpRasDevinfo->dwSize != sizeof(RASDEVINFOA))
   	return ERROR_INVALID_SIZE;

*lpcDevices = 1;
if (!lpRasDevinfo || (*lpcb < sizeof(RASDEVINFOA))) {
*lpcb = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
return ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL;

diff --git a/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c b/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c
index e0ff25f..e982f6c 100644
--- a/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c
+++ b/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c
@@ -77,80 +77,104 @@ static void test_rasenum(void)
 /* test first parameter */
 cb = bufsize;


cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(NULL, &cb, &cDevices);
ok(result == ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL ||
result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
"Expected ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices > 0 && cDevices != 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = 0;
cb = bufsize;

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE ||
result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
"Expected ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA) -1;
cb = bufsize;

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE ||
result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
"Expected ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA) +1;
cb = bufsize;

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE ||
result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
"Expected ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
/* test second parameter */
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, NULL, &cDevices);

cDevices = 0xdead;


Whats the point to set this after the function call? And also, how is this
better than Qian Hongs original patch? Using %u is more correct for unsigned
values, and the empty line after the assignment of *lpcDevices also didn't
hurt.
...
 ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER,
 "Expected ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, got %08d\n", result);


ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
cb = 0;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);

cDevices = 0xdead;
ok(result == ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL ||
result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, /* vista, 2k8 */
"Expected ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL/ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
cb = bufsize -1;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);

cDevices = 0xdead;
ok(result == ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL,
"Expected ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
cb = bufsize +1;

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
ok(result == ERROR_SUCCESS,
"Expected ERROR_SUCCESS, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices > 0 && cDevices != 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
/* test third parameter */
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
cb = bufsize;

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, NULL);
ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER,
"Expected ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
/* test combinations of invalid parameters */

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(NULL, NULL, &cDevices);
ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER,
"Expected ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(NULL, &cb, NULL);
ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER ||
result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
"Expected ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
cb = 0;
rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = 0;

cDevices = 0xdead;
result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE ||
broken(result == ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL), /* win98 */
"Expected ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);

ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, rasDevInfo);


}
-- 2.9.3

    

Re: [PATCH] rasapi32: Ensure device count matches data returned

Signed-off-by: Bruno Jesus bjesus@codeweavers.com

Signed-off-by: Bruno Jesus bjesus@codeweavers.com