On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:14:58PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:35:00PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:53:40PM -0400, David Fritz wrote:
>>>I don't how much you want to rely on undocumented features, but ntdll.dll
>>>exports a function
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:35:00PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:53:40PM -0400, David Fritz wrote:
>>I don't how much you want to rely on undocumented features, but ntdll.dll
>>exports a function called RtlIsDosDeviceName_U(). The WINE implementation
>>has the foll
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 05:26:45PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:55:05PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >>I believe that whenever I try to limit COM to single digits someone
>> >>complains about their special board with 527 com
David Fritz wrote:
>
> I don't think the logic implemented by RtlIsDosDeviceName_U() is all that
> different from the logic in the patch. Which is to say, it seems to use a
> hard-coded list of names and does not actually check for existing devices. Do
> we want to block all names that could b
I don't think the logic implemented by RtlIsDosDeviceName_U() is all that
different from the logic in the patch. Which is to say, it seems to use a
hard-coded list of names and does not actually check for existing devices. Do
we want to block all names that could be DOS devices or just the nam
"Pierre A. Humblet" wrote:
>
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:55:05PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > >>I believe that whenever I try to limit COM to single digits someone
> > >>complains about their special board with 527 com ports or something.
> > >
> > >That
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:55:05PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >>I believe that whenever I try to limit COM to single digits someone
> >>complains about their special board with 527 com ports or something.
> >
> >That's another issue. COM12 is not a DOS devic
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:55:05PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>I believe that whenever I try to limit COM to single digits someone
>>complains about their special board with 527 com ports or something.
>
>That's another issue. COM12 is not a DOS device (on NT), but it can be
>the basename of
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
[...]
Does it handle conin$, conout$ and clocks$ ?
It would appear that it does not (under Win2k SP4):
0x foo
0x0006 con
0x0006 nul
0x0006 prn
0x0008 lpt1
0x lpt16
0x0008 com1
0x com16
0x conin$
0x conout
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
> > David Fritz wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Also, from the patch:
> > >
> > > /* COM and LPT must be followed by a single digit */
> > >
> > > The code in src/winsup/cygwin/devices.cc would seem to indicate th
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:53:40PM -0400, David Fritz wrote:
> >I don't how much you want to rely on undocumented features, but ntdll.dll
> >exports a function called RtlIsDosDeviceName_U(). The WINE implementation
> >has the following to say about it:
> >
> >
> >/
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:53:40PM -0400, David Fritz wrote:
>I don't how much you want to rely on undocumented features, but ntdll.dll
>exports a function called RtlIsDosDeviceName_U(). The WINE implementation
>has the following to say about it:
>
>
>/***
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> David Fritz wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Also, from the patch:
> >
> > /* COM and LPT must be followed by a single digit */
> >
> > The code in src/winsup/cygwin/devices.cc would seem to indicate that
> > the number is not limited to a single digit
David Fritz wrote:
>
> I don't how much you want to rely on undocumented features, but ntdll.dll
> exports a function called RtlIsDosDeviceName_U(). The WINE implementation has
> the following to say about it:
>
> /***
> *
I don't how much you want to rely on undocumented features, but ntdll.dll
exports a function called RtlIsDosDeviceName_U(). The WINE implementation has
the following to say about it:
/***
* RtlIsDosDeviceName_U (
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:16:36PM -0400, David Fritz wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I keep thinking that there is a layer of translation that we're missing
here and we should be somehow using an enumeration that the OS provides
rather than coming up with our own table.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:16:36PM -0400, David Fritz wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I keep thinking that there is a layer of translation that we're missing
>>here and we should be somehow using an enumeration that the OS provides
>>rather than coming up with our own table.
>
>NtQueryAttribute
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:11:55PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
This patch prevents NtCreateFile from creating files with special
names such as NUL.
Because this needs to be che
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:11:55PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >This patch prevents NtCreateFile from creating files with special
>> >names such as NUL.
>> >Because this needs to be checked
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >This patch prevents NtCreateFile from creating files with special
> >names such as NUL.
> >Because this needs to be checked very often, I tried to code it
> >efficiently with a binary search (it ca
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>This patch prevents NtCreateFile from creating files with special
>names such as NUL.
>Because this needs to be checked very often, I tried to code it
>efficiently with a binary search (it can perhaps be reused elsewhere).
>
>The
This patch prevents NtCreateFile from creating files with special
names such as NUL.
Because this needs to be checked very often, I tried to code it
efficiently with a binary search (it can perhaps be reused elsewhere).
The new function is_special_name() overlaps with special_name(),
although the
22 matches
Mail list logo
