Eric Pouech schrieb: > André Hentschel a écrit : >> Eric Pouech schrieb: >> >>> Hi André >>> a couple of comments to your patch >>> >> always welcome! >> >> >>> IMO, we should also test that cbReserved2 is >= sizeof(unsigned) >>> otherwise we'd be in trouble >>> >> maybe you had something like that patch in mind: >> http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-August/077766.html >> it checks if the size makes sense >> >> >> > no > I'm just saying that since we do something like *(unsigned*)lpReserved, > we'd better check that cbReserved2 >= sizeof(unsigned) > I don't think that your patch is correct. If you want a coding of the > "reserved" block, that you can extend, I think you could well have > additional information *after* the block of handles+flags we're considering > > therefore the valid tests I see would be: > cdReserved2 >= sizeof(unsigned) > numH = *(unsigned*)lpReserved2 > error if sizeof(unsigned) + numH*(1+sizeof(HANDLE)) > cbReserved2 > > A+ > > I already understood the problem you mentioned and sent try 6: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-September/078158.html So for now this patch fixes a Problem, if we need it we also could check if the calculated size is bigger than the given one. (You were right with that, too)
-- Best Regards, André Hentschel
