<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Le 01/09/2011 16:22, Francois Gouget a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.DEB.2.02.1109011614300.18176@amboise.dolphin"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Eric Pouech wrote:
[...]
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">you can safely provide the patches with protecting WriteConsole and friends
with a if (!is_console_handle(???)) return FALSE; line
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Would something like the attached patch be ok?
As far as I can see all the other APIs pretty much immediately pass the
handle to wineserver which I expect will complain if it's not a console
handle.
Further notes:
* Performing the 'console handle check' locally would likely be faster
but, except for WriteConsole maybe, this should usually be the case
and is probably not performance critical anyway.
* There are a few cases where we check for invalid parameters and
return an error before the handle is checked by wineserver. It's
possible that in such cases Windows checks the handle first. But
unless we know of applications that need the right error code in
these corner cases it does not justify adding an explicit check.
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
</pre>
</blockquote>
actually, a couple of API support the "bare" handles and those
should be protected (what your patch does)<br>
otherwise, wineserver iwill fail on them<br>
this patch looks ok, but you have to reverse the previous one as
well<br>
A+<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Eric Pouech
"The problem with designing something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of a complete idiot." (Douglas Adams)
</pre>
</body>
</html>