[PATCH] rasapi32: Ensure device count matches data returned

[Bruno Jesus]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Sebastian Lackner
<sebastian at fds-team.de> wrote:
> On 26.02.2017 20:41, Bruno Jesus wrote:
>> From: Bruno Jesus <bjesus at codeweavers.com>
>>
>> Based on original patch by Qian Hong.
>>
>> Fixes bug https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30378
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bruno Jesus <bjesus at codeweavers.com>
>> ---
>>  dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c       |  1 +
>>  dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c b/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c
>> index fcd0cb8..f97d4c1 100644
>> --- a/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c
>> +++ b/dlls/rasapi32/rasapi.c
>> @@ -254,6 +254,7 @@ DWORD WINAPI RasEnumDevicesA(LPRASDEVINFOA lpRasDevinfo, LPDWORD lpcb, LPDWORD l
>>       if(lpRasDevinfo && lpRasDevinfo->dwSize != sizeof(RASDEVINFOA))
>>               return ERROR_INVALID_SIZE;
>>
>> +     *lpcDevices = 1;
>>       if (!lpRasDevinfo || (*lpcb < sizeof(RASDEVINFOA))) {
>>               *lpcb = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
>>               return ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL;
>> diff --git a/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c b/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c
>> index e0ff25f..e982f6c 100644
>> --- a/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c
>> +++ b/dlls/rasapi32/tests/rasapi.c
>> @@ -77,80 +77,104 @@ static void test_rasenum(void)
>>
>>      /* test first parameter */
>>      cb = bufsize;
>> +    cDevices = 0xdead;
>>      result = pRasEnumDevicesA(NULL, &cb, &cDevices);
>>      ok(result == ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL ||
>>      result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
>>      "Expected ERROR_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL, got %08d\n", result);
>> +    ok(cDevices > 0 && cDevices != 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
>>
>>      rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = 0;
>>      cb = bufsize;
>> +    cDevices = 0xdead;
>>      result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
>>      ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE ||
>>      result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
>>      "Expected ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);
>> +    ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
>>
>>      rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA) -1;
>>      cb = bufsize;
>> +    cDevices = 0xdead;
>>      result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
>>      ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE ||
>>      result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
>>      "Expected ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);
>> +    ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
>>
>>      rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA) +1;
>>      cb = bufsize;
>> +    cDevices = 0xdead;
>>      result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, &cb, &cDevices);
>>      ok(result == ERROR_INVALID_SIZE ||
>>      result == ERROR_INVALID_USER_BUFFER, /* win98 */
>>      "Expected ERROR_INVALID_SIZE, got %08d\n", result);
>> +    ok(cDevices == 0xdead, "Unexpected device count %d\n", cDevices);
>>
>>      /* test second parameter */
>>      rasDevInfo[0].dwSize = sizeof(RASDEVINFOA);
>>      result = pRasEnumDevicesA(rasDevInfo, NULL, &cDevices);
>> +    cDevices = 0xdead;
>
> Whats the point to set this after the function call? And also, how is this
> better than Qian Hongs original patch? Using %u is more correct for unsigned
> values, and the empty line after the assignment of *lpcDevices also didn't
> hurt.

Hi, thanks for the review. That was certainly a copy & paste issue. I
see now that you have a staged patch for this that I completely missed
I don't know how, sunday hours wasted for me... The main difference to
Qian's patch is the place where lpcDevices = 1 is set but the staged
patch is already correct too. Please send your patch in ;-)