[PATCH 0/1] MR6249: dinput: Use the correct array index in keyboard_create_device().

[Aida Jonikienė (＠DodoGTA)]

This fixes a segfault when launching NFS Underground.

Fixes: f434ea12b83 ("dinput: Implement DIPROP_SCANCODE.")

[PATCH 1/1] dinput: Use the correct array index in keyboard_create_device().

[Aida Jonikienė]

From: Aida Jonikienė

This fixes a segfault when launching NFS Underground.

Fixes: f434ea12b83 ("dinput: Implement DIPROP_SCANCODE.")
---
 dlls/dinput/keyboard.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/dlls/dinput/keyboard.c b/dlls/dinput/keyboard.c
index 8ec9dd47150..1ec061fa305 100644
--- a/dlls/dinput/keyboard.c
+++ b/dlls/dinput/keyboard.c
@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ static HRESULT keyboard_enum_objects( IDirectInputDevice8W *iface, const DIPROPH
     DWORD index, i, dik;
     BOOL ret;

-    for (i = 0, index = 0; i < 512; ++i)
+    for (i = 0, index = 0; i < impl->base.device_format.dwNumObjs; ++i)
     {
         if (!GetKeyNameTextW( i << 16, instance.tszName, ARRAY_SIZE(instance.tszName) )) continue;
         if (!(dik = map_dik_code( i, 0, subtype, impl->base.dinput->dwVersion ))) continue;

[Aida Jonikienė (＠DodoGTA)]

There are some very related test failures (maybe the updated index isn't so correct then?)

[Rémi Bernon (＠rbernon)]

On Sat Aug 10 21:00:17 2024 +0000, Aida Jonikienė wrote:
> There are some very related test failures (maybe the updated index isn't
> so correct then?)

You're changing the index in keyboard_enum_objects, which doesn't match what the commit title says. Then, `keyboard_enum_objects` is called to initialize dwNumObjs, so using that member in it will simply make it not enumerate anything.

Last, both `keyboard_enum_objects` loop (which hasn't been changed, so is unlikely causing a regression), and the new `keyboard_create_device` both use the exact same conditions, and I believe they are enumerating the exact same number of objects. If they weren't, the tests would also likely be crashing already.

If there's a regression it's more likely related to the addition of DIPROP_SCANCODE support.

[Aida Jonikienė (＠DodoGTA)]

On Sun Aug 11 07:36:24 2024 +0000, Rémi Bernon wrote:
> You're changing the index in keyboard_enum_objects, which doesn't match
> what the commit title says. Then, `keyboard_enum_objects` is called to
> initialize dwNumObjs, so using that member in it will simply make it not
> enumerate anything.
> Last, both `keyboard_enum_objects` loop (which hasn't been changed, so
> is unlikely causing a regression), and the new `keyboard_create_device`
> both use the exact same conditions, and I believe they are enumerating
> the exact same number of objects. If they weren't, the tests would also
> likely be crashing already.
> If there's a regression it's more likely related to the addition of
> DIPROP_SCANCODE support.

I accidentally committed the wrong change (because the loops look so similar) 🤦‍♀️

The tests do pass with the change in the correct place though (at least with wine-staging)