Juan Lang wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> +if (ppSecurityDescriptor)
> +*ppSecurityDescriptor = sd;
> +
>
> you leak sd in the (implicit) else block here.
> --Juan
>
>
There are no other options here. I'm sure windows will leak it as well. Did
anyone mentioned already how well win32api is des
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Juan Lang wrote:
> > I guess I should elaborate on that. You can request any of the four
> > parts of the security descriptor and pass NULL for the SD itself and
> > Windows will return them without anyway to free the memory.
>
> I can see what MSDN says
> I guess I should elaborate on that. You can request any of the four
> parts of the security descriptor and pass NULL for the SD itself and
> Windows will return them without anyway to free the memory.
I can see what MSDN says it does, but your tests don't check that
calling GetSecurityInfo with
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:28:10PM -0700, Dan Hipschman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:25:00PM -0700, Juan Lang wrote:
> > +if (ppSecurityDescriptor)
> > +*ppSecurityDescriptor = sd;
> > +
> >
> > you leak sd in the (implicit) else block here.
>
> So does Windows.
I guess I shou
>> you leak sd in the (implicit) else block here.
>
> So does Windows.
In that case, you should include that in your tests, as it's not
especially obvious.
--Juan
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:25:00PM -0700, Juan Lang wrote:
> +if (ppSecurityDescriptor)
> +*ppSecurityDescriptor = sd;
> +
>
> you leak sd in the (implicit) else block here.
So does Windows.
Hi Dan,
+if (ppSecurityDescriptor)
+*ppSecurityDescriptor = sd;
+
you leak sd in the (implicit) else block here.
--Juan
> Any API may fail in some way, but that would be ridiculous to pollute
> the whole Wine source tree with asserts. As I've said, IMO it's better
> to have a test case for the API which will detect broken behaviour
> instead.
I agree that we shouldn't have asserts across DLLs. While we may
"know"
"Dan Hipschman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I like the assert. You haven't really given me a reason to take it
> out. Why is it inappropriate? It's use here seems perfectly reasonable
> to me. I'm calling NtQuerySecurityObject in such a way that I'm
> expecting it to fail, and if it doesn
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:21:44PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Dan Hipschman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >+#include
> ...
> >DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> >HANDLE hObject, SE_OBJECT_TYPE ObjectType,
> >@@ -2718,8 +2735,44 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> >PSECURITY_DESCRIPTO
"Dan Hipschman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#include
...
> DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> HANDLE hObject, SE_OBJECT_TYPE ObjectType,
> @@ -2718,8 +2735,44 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> PSECURITY_DESCRIPTOR *ppSecurityDescriptor
> )
> {
> - FIXME("stub!\n");
> - return ERROR_BAD_
"Dan Hipschman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#include
...
> @@ -2718,8 +2719,38 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetSecurityInfo(
> PSECURITY_DESCRIPTOR *ppSecurityDescriptor
> )
> {
> - FIXME("stub!\n");
> - return ERROR_BAD_PROVIDER;
> +SECURITY_DESCRIPTOR *sd;
> +NTSTATUS status;
> +ULONG n1
12 matches
Mail list logo
