For CRYPT_SEC_DESCR, my previous implementation of the patch tested for it with an "&" as you are suggesting. But, after Alexandre Julliard comment, I no more check the current version of windows and return always CRYPT_SEC_DESCR in RSAENH_CPGetProvParam. So, that's why I put an "==" instead to stick with wine implementation. Well, I think the two views are equivalent even if my first patch containing the version check seemed more logical to me but ,as I am new to wine, I prefer following the advise of more experienced wine developers. Question: are wine tests meant to be run on Windows? This is the only case for the test to fail.
Cheers, Mounir IDRASSI IDRIX - Cryptography and IT Security Experts http://www.idrix.fr Juan Lang wrote: > Hi Mounir, > > + case PP_KEYSTORAGE: > + dwTemp = CRYPT_SEC_DESCR; > > This looks fine.. > > + result = CryptGetProvParam(prov, PP_KEYSTORAGE, (LPBYTE)&dwParam, > &dataLen, 0); > + ok(result && dataLen == sizeof(dwParam) && (dwParam == > CRYPT_SEC_DESCR), > + "Expected CRYPT_SEC_DESCR to be set, got 0x%08X\n",dwParam); > > but this test will now fail on Win9x, yes? > > A simple fix would be to check (dwParam & CRYPT_SEC_DESCR) rather than > (dwParam == CRYPT_SEC_DESCR). > > --Juan > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Don't pick lemons. > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html > > >
