Need help with a rsaenh bug
fracting at gmail.com
Fri Jun 28 11:16:50 CDT 2013
Thanks for reviewing!
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Juan Lang <juan.lang at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's more in line with most C code to use !memcmp(...) instead of
> memcmp(...)==0. I find it easier to scan, anyway, as I've gotten used to !
> comparisons to check equality in memcmp, strcmp, and variants.
I'm glad to change, but the surrounding code use memcmp(...)==0
already, should I change that as well?
> Another minor point: it's customary to set last error prior to testing it
> when you expect it to have a certain value, e.g.:
> + bad_data[cTestData[i].buflen - 1] = ~bad_data[cTestData[i].buflen -
> + result = CryptDecrypt(hKey, 0, TRUE, 0, bad_data, &dwLen);
> + ok(!result, "CryptDecrypt should failed!\n");
> + ok(GetLastError() == NTE_BAD_DATA, "%08x\n", GetLastError());
> Prior to the result = CryptDecrypt(hKey, ...) line, please add a
> SetLastError(0xdeadbeef); that will ensure that the following comparison of
> GetLastError() to NTE_BAD_DATA isn't succeeding due to an earlier failure.
Good point, thanks, will do that.
More information about the wine-devel