Reece Dunn wrote:
2009/3/4 Paul Vriens <[email protected]>:
Hi,

We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for advapi32:security :

security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998

998 = ERROR_NOACCESS -- "Invalid access to memory location."

Google 
(http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ERROR_NOACCESS+GetTokenInformation&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2)
found http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2008-04/msg00222.html:

"For whatever reason, GetTokenInformation was failing and returning
ERROR_NOACCESS when passed a 1024 byte buffer.  I changed the code to
first call it with NULL to get the desired size, and that seems to have
satisfied it.  I cannot explain why it would object to a 1024 byte
buffer, maybe you have some idea."

That thread seems to suggest that this is an alignment issue -- the
GetTokenInformation wants the buffer to be aligned properly. Corinna
Vinschen suggests using

    PTOKEN_GROUPS groups = (PTOKEN_GROUPS) alloca (size);

as alloca aligns correctly in cygwin's case.

The buffer used in the test (line 1199) is allocated on the stack as a
standard array and is thus not guaranteed to have the correct
alignment.

But why suddenly? I hate it when something like that happens.


And now also the rpcrt4:server test on W2K3 crashes (which it didn't before)
although that crash is not shown on test.winehq.org (child process
crashing?) but you will see 13 failures for this test (0 before).

I haven't found the variable yet. I'm running VMware but I also see the
advapi32 failure on a real box. My VMware image for W2K3 hasn't been updated
since last week.

No idea for this one. Have you done a bisect?

Yep, as I also had the failure when crosscompiling myself I went back to yesterdays build which was OK (see test.winehq.org), to no avail (it also fails).

The only thing I can think of is changes to my Fedora 10 (there were some updates yesterday) build. Doesn't explains the failure for that native box though (maybe it was the first run ever for that box, dunno).

--
Cheers,

Paul.


Reply via email to