[PATCH] kernel32: CreateDirectory shouldn't return ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED for the root of the drive.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry at baikal.ru> writes:

> Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > According to the testbot results CreateDirectory("C:\\", NULL) fails
>> >> >> > with ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED for not administrators. However with UAC enabled
>> >> >> > and not and administrator account I get ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS in that case
>> >> >> > with Windows 7 64-bit running on real hardware. Moreover, Wine doesn't
>> >> >> > really perform any access checks in that case and blindly assumes that
>> >> >> > returning STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED is correct behaviour for the drive's root:
>> >> >> > dlls/ntdll/directory.c,lookup_unix_name().
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This patch fixes an application that can't find its data files because
>> >> >> > after it receives ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED it stops further directory traversing.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> What app is that? Does it fail on Windows when not administrator?
>> >> >
>> >> > The application doesn't fail on Windows, and as I mentioned above under
>> >> > a not administrator account and UAC enabled I don't get ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED
>> >> > error with the tests included in the patch.
>> >> 
>> >> Your tests get ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED on every single testbot vm except
>> >> w8adm, so that's not very convincing... Is the app going to fail on all
>> >> these vms?
>> >
>> > I'd guess if the CreateDirectory("C:\") returns ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED
>> > then the app would fail. It's not clear how the VMs are configured
>> > and why I don't get ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED on real hardware under a not
>> > admin account, but it should be pretty obvious that since Wine doesn't
>> > perform any real administrator access checks, and if it would the checks
>> > should be done on the server side, ntdll checks shouldn't return access
>> > denied error.
>> 
>> It's also pretty obvious that this check was added for a reason, so it
>> would need a more convincing argument to remove it.
>
> Do you recall the reason why that check was added? I can't find any
> specific test case for this behaviour either.

As far as I can tell, you added it ;-)

https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/d75aed2c92435e8ae4d5c260e31e815ee77db34b

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org