Need help with a rsaenh bug

Qian Hong fracting at
Fri Jun 28 11:16:50 CDT 2013

Dear Juan,

Thanks for reviewing!

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Juan Lang <juan.lang at> 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 -
> 1];
> +      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.

Qian Hong


More information about the wine-devel mailing list