[PATCH v5 0/1] MR4310: ntdll: Tweak the binary representation of SRWLOCK.

[Yuxuan Shui (＠yshui)]

There are applications that uses SRWLOCK in an invalid way and then checks its binary
representation. ~~Specifically they releases an unlocked SRWLOCK then check its bit pattern is
all-ones.~~

Tweak the representation a bit so they are happy.

--
  v5: ntdll: Tweak the binary representation of SRWLOCK.

https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/4310

[PATCH v5 1/1] ntdll: Tweak the binary representation of SRWLOCK.

[Yuxuan Shui]

From: Yuxuan Shui

There are applications that uses SRWLOCK in an invalid way and then checks its binary
representation. Tweak our representation a bit so they are happy.
---
 dlls/kernel32/tests/sync.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 dlls/ntdll/sync.c          |  4 ++--
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/tests/sync.c b/dlls/kernel32/tests/sync.c
index 10765765bc5..6c0f2280f78 100644
--- a/dlls/kernel32/tests/sync.c
+++ b/dlls/kernel32/tests/sync.c
@@ -2535,6 +2535,25 @@ static void test_srwlock_example(void)
     trace("number of total exclusive accesses is %ld\n", srwlock_protected_value);
 }

+static void test_srwlock_quirk(void)
+{
+    union { SRWLOCK *s; LONG *l; } u = { &srwlock_example };
+
+    if (!pInitializeSRWLock) {
+        /* function is not yet in XP, only in newer Windows */
+        win_skip("no srw lock support.\n");
+        return;
+    }
+
+    *u.l = 0;
+    pReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&srwlock_example);
+    ok(*u.l == 0xffffffff, "expected 0xffffffff, got %lx\n", *u.l);
+
+    *u.l = 1;
+    pReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&srwlock_example);
+    ok(*u.l == 0, "expected 0x0, got %lx\n", *u.l);
+}
+
 static DWORD WINAPI alertable_wait_thread(void *param)
 {
     HANDLE *semaphores = param;
@@ -2887,6 +2906,7 @@ START_TEST(sync)
     test_condvars_base(&unaligned_cv.cv);
     test_condvars_consumer_producer();
     test_srwlock_base(&aligned_srwlock);
+    test_srwlock_quirk();
 #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
     /* unaligned locks only work on x86 platforms */
     test_srwlock_base(&unaligned_srwlock.lock);
diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/sync.c b/dlls/ntdll/sync.c
index fa64917029a..90370abba09 100644
--- a/dlls/ntdll/sync.c
+++ b/dlls/ntdll/sync.c
@@ -473,8 +473,6 @@ DWORD WINAPI RtlRunOnceExecuteOnce( RTL_RUN_ONCE *once, PRTL_RUN_ONCE_INIT_FN fu

struct srw_lock
 {
-    short exclusive_waiters;
-
     /* Number of shared owners, or -1 if owned exclusive.
      *
      * Sadly Windows has no equivalent to FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET, so in order to wake
@@ -487,6 +485,8 @@ struct srw_lock
      * must not be the first element in the structure.
      */
     short owners;
+
+    short exclusive_waiters;
 };
 C_ASSERT( sizeof(struct srw_lock) == 4 );

[PATCH v5 1/1] ntdll: Tweak the binary representation of SRWLOCK.

[Marvin]

Hi,

It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below.
Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch.
If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise
please ask for the known failures list to be updated.

The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how
to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details:

The full results can be found at:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=139606

Your paranoid android.

=== debian11 (32 bit report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11 (32 bit ar:MA report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11 (32 bit de report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11 (32 bit fr report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11 (32 bit he:IL report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11 (32 bit hi:IN report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11 (32 bit ja:JP report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11 (32 bit zh:CN report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11b (32 bit WoW report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0

=== debian11b (64 bit WoW report) ===

kernel32:
sync.c:2550: Test failed: expected 0xffffffff, got 0